Minneapolis Eastern Railway Company v. Minnesota was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1910. The case involved a dispute between the Minneapolis Eastern Railway Company and the state of Minnesota over the company’s right to operate a railway line in the state. The railway company argued that it had the right to operate the line under the terms of a contract it had entered into with the state. The state argued that the contract was invalid because it had been entered into without the approval of the state legislature. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company, holding that the contract was valid and that the state had no right to interfere with the company’s operations. The Court held that the contract was binding on both parties and that the state had no authority to interfere with the company’s operations. The Court also held that the state had no right to impose additional regulations on the company’s operations. The decision in this case was important because it established the principle that contracts between private parties and the state are binding and that the state cannot interfere with the operations of private companies without the approval of the legislature. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving the rights of private companies to operate in the state.

In the dissenting opinion of Minneapolis Eastern Railway Company v. Minnesota, Justice Harlan argued that the state had no right to impose a tax on railroad companies operating within its borders. He argued that such taxation would be unconstitutional because it violated the Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution which grants Congress exclusive power over interstate commerce. Furthermore, he maintained that if states were allowed to tax railroads in this manner then they could also levy taxes on other forms of interstate commerce and thus interfere with Congress’s authority over these matters. He concluded by stating that allowing such taxation would lead to an “unwarranted interference with national legislation” and should not be permitted under any circumstances.