In the Missouri Rate Cases, also known as Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R.R. Co. v. Knott &C., 1912, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not a state had the authority to regulate railroad rates within its borders when those railroads were part of an interstate system. The case arose after Missouri passed legislation that reduced freight rates for intrastate commerce on certain railroads in order to protect local businesses and consumers from perceived price gouging by powerful railroad companies. These companies challenged this law arguing it interfered with their ability to conduct business across state lines which they believed fell under federal jurisdiction due to the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Missouri stating that states did have some power over rate regulation even if it affected interstate commerce indirectly because there was no explicit provision in federal law preventing them from doing so at that time.

In the dissenting opinion for the Missouri Rate Cases, it was argued that the court had overstepped its jurisdiction by interfering with state legislation. The justices believed that states should have autonomy in regulating their own commerce and industries, including setting rates for railroads. They contended that if a state's regulations were unjust or unreasonable, then those affected could seek redress through legal channels within the state itself rather than appealing to federal courts. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative impacts on local businesses and economies due to federally imposed rate changes. This dissenting view emphasized respect for states' rights and cautioned against excessive federal intervention in matters of local governance.