The U.S. Supreme Court case Railroad Commission of Wisconsin et al. v. Maxcy, Receiver, et al., 1930 revolved around the issue of whether a state commission could regulate interstate commerce by setting rates for intrastate rail traffic that were lower than those set by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) for interstate traffic on the same lines. The court ruled in favor of Maxcy and other receivers appointed to manage bankrupt railroads who argued that they should be allowed to charge higher rates approved by ICC rather than follow lower rates set by the state commission. The decision was based on two main points: first, it would be unfair to force financially struggling companies to operate at a loss; secondly, states cannot interfere with federal regulation of interstate commerce as per Supremacy Clause in Constitution which gives precedence over conflicting state laws.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Railroad Commission of Wisconsin et al. v. Maxcy, Receiver, et al., it was argued that the majority's decision to invalidate a state law regulating railroad rates interfered with states' rights and undermined their ability to protect public interests within their jurisdiction. The dissenting justices contended that there was no constitutional basis for this interference in state affairs by federal courts unless there is clear evidence that such laws are unreasonable or arbitrary. They believed that the court should defer to regulatory bodies like the Railroad Commission on matters related to rate-setting as they have more expertise and understanding of local conditions than federal judges do. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies in how similar cases had been handled previously by different courts which could lead to confusion and uncertainty about what constitutes reasonable regulation under law.