The Philadelphia and Reading Railway Company v. United States of America; Interstate Commerce Commission, and Allentown Portland Cement Company case in 1915 revolved around the issue of whether a railway company could charge more for shorter distances than longer ones. The Supreme Court ruled that it was within the power of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to determine if such pricing practices were justifiable or discriminatory under the Hepburn Act. The ICC had previously found that charging higher rates for shorter hauls on coal shipments from Pennsylvania mines was unjustly discriminatory against local trade, favoring through traffic instead. This decision by the ICC was challenged by Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co., but upheld by both lower courts and eventually affirmed by the Supreme Court.

In the dissenting opinion for Philadelphia and Reading Railway Company v. United States of America; Interstate Commerce Commission, and Allentown Portland Cement Company, Justice Holmes argued that the court should not have intervened in this case as it was a matter best left to the discretion of administrative bodies such as the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). He believed that courts should only intervene when there is clear evidence of error or abuse by these agencies. In this particular case, he did not see any compelling reason why the ICC's decision to allow lower rates for cement transportation should be overturned. The majority had ruled against this on grounds that it constituted unfair competition but Holmes disagreed with their interpretation of what constitutes 'unfairness'. He also pointed out inconsistencies in how they applied principles from previous cases related to rate regulation. Overall, his dissent emphasized judicial restraint and deference towards expert regulatory bodies like ICC.