The Piedmont & Northern Railway Co. et al. v. United States et al., 1929, was a case that revolved around the issue of whether or not the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had jurisdiction over intrastate rates set by railroads operating solely within one state but forming part of an interstate route system. The Supreme Court held that the ICC did have such authority if it found that these intrastate rates were causing undue and unreasonable disadvantage to interstate commerce in comparison with other states' rates for similar services, thereby affecting overall competition negatively. This decision affirmed Congress's power under the Commerce Clause to regulate even purely local activities when they significantly affect interstate commerce.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Piedmont & Northern Ry. Co. et al. v United States et al., argued that the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had overstepped its authority by ordering a railroad company to construct and operate an extension of its line without sufficient evidence proving it was necessary for public convenience or necessity, as required by law. The dissenters believed this decision violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment because it forced private companies into service without just compensation, essentially amounting to government seizure of property rights without proper justification or recompense. They also expressed concern about setting a dangerous precedent where regulatory bodies could compel businesses into action based on arbitrary determinations rather than concrete proof of need.