In the 1911 case Procter & Gamble Company v. United States of America, Interstate Commerce Commission, Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Railway Company et al., the Supreme Court examined whether a railroad company could offer reduced rates to a soap manufacturer for shipping its products in return for an agreement that the manufacturer would use only that railroad's services. The court ruled against Procter & Gamble (P&G), stating that such agreements were illegal under federal law as they constituted unfair practices and created monopolies. P&G had argued it was entitled to these special rates due to its high volume of business with the railway company but this argument was rejected by the court which held that all shippers should be treated equally regardless of their size or amount of business they brought to a carrier.

The dissenting opinion in the Procter & Gamble Company v. United States of America case argued that the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) did not have the authority to determine what constituted a reasonable rate for freight transportation, as it was essentially a judicial function. The justices believed that this power should remain with the courts and expressed concern about potential abuses of discretion by administrative bodies like ICC. They also disagreed with majority's interpretation of Hepburn Act, arguing it didn't intend to transfer such vast powers from judiciary to an administrative body. Furthermore, they contended that if Congress had intended such a significant shift in power dynamics between branches of government, it would have been explicitly stated within legislation itself rather than being left open for interpretation.