The U.S. Supreme Court case Railroad Commission of Texas et al. v. Pullman Company et al., 1940, is a landmark decision that established the doctrine known as "Pullman Abstention". The Pullman Company was ordered by the Texas Railroad Commission to employ conductors on its sleeping cars operating within the state, which led to a dispute with African American porters who feared job loss due to this order. The porters sued in federal court claiming racial discrimination and violation of their constitutional rights under equal protection laws while also challenging the authority of the commission itself. The Supreme Court did not rule directly on these issues but instead invoked what became known as "Pullman abstention", deciding that it would be better for state courts to interpret complex or unclear areas of state law before federal courts intervene in such cases involving constitutional questions. This principle allows for avoidance of unnecessary friction between state and federal authorities by deferring initially to local interpretations.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Company argued that the Supreme Court should have decided on the merits of the case rather than abstaining and remanding it to state court for interpretation of state law. The dissenters believed that there was no ambiguity in Texas law, which clearly allowed sleeping car porters to be classified as conductors. They also contended that by not deciding on this issue, they were allowing racial discrimination against African American workers who were being denied these positions due to their race. Furthermore, they criticized the majority's reliance on federalism principles as a reason for abstention, arguing instead that protecting civil rights is a responsibility shared by both federal and state courts.