In the case of Interstate Commerce Commission v. United States ex rel. Humboldt Steamship Company, 1911, the Supreme Court examined whether a steamship company operating between San Francisco and Alaska could be classified as a "common carrier" under federal law and thus subject to regulation by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). The Humboldt Steamship Company argued that it was not because its operations were maritime in nature rather than terrestrial or rail-based. However, the ICC contended that since their services involved interstate commerce, they should fall within its regulatory purview regardless of their mode of transportation. Ultimately, the Supreme Court sided with Humboldt Steamship Company ruling that while Congress had broad powers to regulate interstate commerce under Constitution's Commerce Clause; those powers did not extend to maritime shipping activities unless explicitly stated in legislation.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Interstate Commerce Commission v. United States of America ex rel. Humboldt Steamship Company, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a ruling by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) that certain rates charged by railroads were unreasonable and discriminatory against water carriers like Humboldt Steamship Company. He argued that there was insufficient evidence to support ICC's findings and questioned whether it had overstepped its authority in making such determinations about rate fairness without clear legislative guidelines or standards. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential negative impacts on competition if regulatory bodies could arbitrarily decide what constituted reasonable rates based on their own subjective judgments rather than objective market conditions or economic principles.