The case National Railroad Passenger Corporation, et al. v. Boston and Maine Corporation, et al., 1991 revolved around the issue of whether Amtrak (National Railroad Passenger Corporation) could force a private railroad company to allow it to use its tracks for passenger service under the Rail Passenger Service Act (RPSA). The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Amtrak stating that such an action was constitutional as per Interstate Commerce Commission's interpretation of RPSA. The court held that Congress had intended for Amtrak to have access to national rail network even if it meant using privately owned tracks when necessary. This decision upheld the power granted by Congress allowing Amtrak access on any rail line with reasonable terms and conditions.

In the dissenting opinion for National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Boston and Maine Corporation, Justice Scalia argued that the majority misinterpreted federal law by allowing Amtrak to force a private railroad company to sell its rail lines at below-market prices. He contended that this interpretation effectively allowed Amtrak, a government-owned corporation, to take private property without just compensation – an action he believed violated the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. Furthermore, Scalia disagreed with the majority's view of "just and reasonable" rates as those necessary for financial self-sustainability; instead arguing they should reflect fair market value. Finally, he criticized their reliance on legislative history rather than clear statutory language in reaching their decision.