In the case of Kansas City Southern Railway Company v. Anderson in 1913, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving an injury to a railway employee and his subsequent compensation claim. The plaintiff, Mr. Anderson, was injured while working for the defendant company when he fell from a boxcar due to alleged negligence by another employee who failed to secure it properly. He sought damages under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). However, Kansas City Southern Railway argued that FELA did not apply as they believed that at the time of his accident, Mr. Anderson's duties were not directly related to interstate commerce - which is necessary for FELA applicability. The court held in favor of Mr. Anderson stating that even though he wasn't engaged in interstate transportation at exactly moment of injury; however since his overall employment involved tasks contributing towards such commerce (like moving cars between tracks), hence FELA applied here too. This decision set important precedent regarding interpretation and application of federal laws like FELA concerning worker injuries within industries involved with interstate commerce.

In the dissenting opinion of Kansas City Southern Railway Company v. Anderson, the justice argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and legal principles concerning interstate commerce. The dissent emphasized that a state should not be allowed to regulate rates for services performed entirely within its borders if those services are part of an interstate journey. This would interfere with Congress' exclusive power over interstate commerce, as established by the Constitution. Furthermore, it was pointed out that allowing states to set their own rates could lead to inconsistencies and conflicts between different jurisdictions, which would undermine national uniformity in commercial regulation - a key objective of federal control over interstate commerce.