Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway Company v. United States is a Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether the federal government had the power to regulate the rates of a private railroad company. The case arose when the United States sued the railroad company for charging excessive rates for transporting goods. The railroad company argued that the federal government did not have the power to regulate its rates, as this was a matter of private contract between the railroad company and its customers. The Supreme Court held that the federal government did have the power to regulate the rates of the railroad company. The Court reasoned that the power to regulate interstate commerce was granted to the federal government by the Constitution, and that the power to regulate the rates of a private railroad company was an inherent part of that power. The Court also held that the federal government had the power to regulate the rates of the railroad company in order to protect the public from excessive rates. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the federal government had the power to regulate the rates of a private railroad company in order to protect the public from excessive rates. This decision established the precedent that the federal government has the power to regulate the rates of private companies in order to protect the public.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway Company v. United States. He argued that the majority's decision was contrary to established law and precedent, as well as to sound public policy. Justice Field maintained that Congress had no authority under the Constitution to impose a tax on property owned by a state or its citizens without their consent; he further contended that such taxation would be an unconstitutional interference with states' rights and sovereignty over their own affairs. Additionally, Justice Field argued that it was not within Congress' power to require corporations like railroads—which are chartered by individual states—to pay taxes imposed upon them by another state without violating those charters granted by each respective state legislature. Finally, he concluded his dissent with an assertion of fundamental principles: "The right of taxation is one of the most essential attributes of sovereignty," and therefore should only be exercised when expressly authorized either through constitutional amendment or congressional legislation passed pursuant thereto which has been approved by both houses and signed into law by the President himself