In the 1933 case of Missouri v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co., the state of Missouri sought to collect taxes from several railway companies, including the Missouri Pacific Railway Company. The railways argued that they were exempt from these taxes under an 1875 agreement with the state which granted them perpetual tax exemption in exchange for a one-time payment and annual payments thereafter. However, this agreement was made before a constitutional amendment in 1904 which required all corporations to pay their fair share of taxes. The Supreme Court ruled against the railway companies, stating that no contract or law can supersede amendments to a constitution because constitutions are supreme laws of any land; therefore, contracts must yield to its power and authority. This ruling upheld states' rights over corporate agreements and reinforced taxation powers as per constitutional provisions.

In the dissenting opinion for Missouri v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co., it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring railroads to maintain certain types of crossings over their tracks infringed upon interstate commerce regulations, which are under federal jurisdiction. The dissenting justices believed that this ruling gave states too much power in regulating industries involved in interstate trade and could potentially disrupt uniformity across state lines. They contended that such matters should be left up to Congress or federal regulatory bodies, not individual states. Furthermore, they expressed concern about the financial burden placed on railway companies by these mandated improvements and questioned whether safety benefits justified these costs.