In the case of State of Oklahoma, on the Relation of West, Attorney General v. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Company (1910), the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state law could regulate freight rates for railroads operating within its borders. The State of Oklahoma had passed legislation setting maximum freight rates that were lower than those charged by several railway companies including Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Company. The railway company argued that this violated their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause and amounted to an unlawful taking without just compensation. However, in a unanimous decision delivered by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., the court upheld Oklahoma's right to regulate intrastate commerce and set reasonable railroad tariffs as part of its police power provided it did not interfere with interstate commerce or violate federal laws.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of State of Oklahoma, on the Relation of West, Attorney General v. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Company in 1910, Justice Harlan argued that it was not within the jurisdiction or power of a federal court to intervene and prevent state officials from enforcing state laws unless those laws were clearly unconstitutional. He believed that this principle should apply even if there was a potential risk for property loss by corporations due to these laws. According to him, any disputes regarding such losses should be resolved through compensation after enforcement rather than preventing enforcement altogether. In his view, allowing federal courts to interfere with states' rights in this way could lead them down a dangerous path where they might eventually have too much control over state affairs.