In the case of Missouri Pacific Railway Company v. City of Omaha in 1914, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a city ordinance requiring trains to slow down while passing through certain areas did not interfere with interstate commerce and was therefore constitutional. The court held that such regulations were within the police power of states as long as they do not conflict with federal laws or unreasonably burden interstate commerce. The railway company had argued that this local law interfered with its ability to conduct business across state lines, but the court disagreed, stating it was a reasonable safety measure for protecting citizens from harm caused by fast-moving trains.

In the dissenting opinion for Missouri Pacific Railway Company v. City of Omaha, Justice Holmes argued that the city had no right to force the railway company to construct a viaduct over its tracks at its own expense. He believed it was an unfair imposition on private property rights and went against constitutional principles. The justice contended that if such improvements were necessary for public safety or convenience, they should be funded by general taxation rather than imposed on individual companies. Furthermore, he disagreed with majority's interpretation of previous case law and asserted that those cases did not establish a precedent for this kind of municipal power over railroads. In his view, requiring a railroad company to bear all costs related to crossing improvements would amount to an unjust taking without compensation.