In the case of McGovern, Administratrix v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Company in 1914, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not a railway company could be held liable for injuries sustained by an individual who had trespassed onto their property. The plaintiff's husband had been killed while attempting to board a moving freight train owned by the defendant railroad company without permission and she sought damages for his death. The court ruled that since her husband was trespassing at the time of his injury, he assumed all risks associated with such action and thus absolved the railway company from any liability related to his death. This decision reinforced legal principles regarding premises liability and contributory negligence - asserting that individuals who willingly engage in dangerous activities cannot hold others responsible for any harm they may suffer as a result.

In the dissenting opinion for McGovern, Administratrix v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Company, Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision was based on a misinterpretation of Pennsylvania law and an overreach of federal authority. He contended that state laws should govern in cases involving local matters such as this one, where a woman sued a railway company for negligence after her husband died while working on its tracks. According to Holmes, Pennsylvania law would have allowed the case to proceed because it recognized "implied" contracts between employers and employees regarding safety measures at work sites. The majority ruling dismissed the suit by applying federal common law instead which required explicit contractual obligations or statutory regulations for employee protection claims against employers. This interpretation undermined states' rights and ignored established legal principles within individual jurisdictions according to him.