In the 1913 case of Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company of Texas v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the federal government and against a railway company that had challenged an order from the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). The ICC had ordered several railroads to cease discriminatory practices related to freight rates for interstate commerce between certain states. The railway company argued that this was beyond ICC's jurisdiction as it involved intrastate commerce within Texas only. However, the court held that while normally such matters would be considered intrastate affairs and thus outside federal regulation, when they have a substantial impact on interstate trade - as these discriminatory practices did - they fall under Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. Therefore, ICC's order was upheld.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company of Texas v. United States in 1913, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Hepburn Act. He argued that it was not Congress' intention to give such broad power to the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) over railroad rates without judicial review. He believed that if Congress had intended this, they would have explicitly stated so in clear and unambiguous terms within the legislation itself. Furthermore, he contended that even if such powers were granted by Congress to an administrative body like ICC, those powers should be subject to judicial oversight and review as a safeguard against potential abuse or misuse of authority by these bodies. In essence, his argument centered on maintaining checks and balances between different branches or arms of government - legislative, executive (administrative), and judiciary - which is a fundamental principle underpinning American democracy.