In the 1916 case of Mississippi Railroad Commission et al. v. Mobile & Ohio Railroad Company, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state has jurisdiction to regulate interstate commerce rates for railroads operating within its borders. The Mississippi Railroad Commission had ordered the Mobile & Ohio Railroad Company to lower their freight rates on intrastate shipments, which they argued were discriminatory and excessive compared to those in neighboring states. However, the railroad company contended that this order infringed upon their rights under federal law and violated principles of equal protection. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railroad company, holding that while states have power over local matters concerning railroads within their boundaries, they cannot interfere with or control aspects related directly to interstate commerce - a domain reserved exclusively for Congress by virtue of Commerce Clause in Constitution. This decision reaffirmed federal supremacy over state laws when it comes to regulating interstate commerce.

In the dissenting opinion for Mississippi Railroad Commission et al. v. Mobile & Ohio Railroad Company, it was argued that the court majority had overstepped its jurisdiction by intervening in a matter of state regulation and control of railroads within its borders. The dissenting justices believed that the State of Mississippi should have been allowed to enforce their own laws regarding railroad rates without interference from federal courts unless there was clear evidence that these laws were unreasonable or oppressive. They contended that this case did not present such evidence and thus, they disagreed with the decision to strike down Mississippi's law as unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. Furthermore, they expressed concern about setting a precedent where federal courts could easily override states' rights in matters concerning local commerce regulations.