In the 1932 case of Moffat Tunnel League et al. v. United States et al., a group known as the Moffat Tunnel League challenged the legality of certain actions taken by federal agencies and officials in relation to bonds issued for construction of a railway tunnel in Colorado, alleging that these actions violated their rights under the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled against them, holding that they lacked standing to sue because they had not demonstrated any injury or threat of injury resulting from these actions. Furthermore, it was determined that even if such an injury could be shown, it would not constitute a violation of their constitutional rights since there was no evidence suggesting arbitrary or discriminatory treatment by government officials.

In the dissenting opinion for Moffat Tunnel League v. United States, Justice McReynolds argued that the majority's decision to allow federal control over a state-chartered corporation was an overreach of power. He contended that this case did not involve interstate commerce and therefore should not fall under federal jurisdiction. The tunnel in question was entirely within Colorado and owned by a corporation chartered by the state; thus, it should be subject to local law rather than national regulation according to him. Furthermore, he suggested that if Congress could regulate such corporations simply because they were involved in rail transportation - even when their operations were confined within one state - then there would be virtually no limit on its power over businesses generally. This view reflected his belief in strict constructionism and states' rights.