The U.S. Supreme Court case Interstate Commerce Commission et al. v. City of Jersey City et al., 1943, revolved around the issue of whether or not the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had jurisdiction over a dispute between railroads and local governments regarding fees for use of public lands for railroad tracks in Jersey City, New Jersey. The city argued that it was within its rights to charge such fees as part of its police powers, while the ICC claimed authority under federal commerce laws to regulate these charges as they affected interstate trade. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the ICC, stating that when state regulations interfere with interstate commerce or contradict national policy on matters related to it, federal law prevails according to Supremacy Clause in Article VI of Constitution.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Interstate Commerce Commission et al. v. City of Jersey City et al., it was argued that the Supreme Court had overstepped its boundaries by intervening in a matter that should have been left to state and local authorities. The dissenters believed that this case, which involved a dispute between Jersey City and several railroad companies over rates charged for use of city-owned waterfront facilities, did not fall under federal jurisdiction because it pertained to intrastate commerce rather than interstate commerce. They contended that the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) lacked authority to regulate these fees since they were essentially rents paid for property usage, not charges related to transportation services across state lines. Furthermore, they asserted that allowing ICC intervention would set a dangerous precedent by undermining states' rights and disrupting established principles of federalism.