In the case of Railway Labor Executives' Association et al. v. United States et al., 1964, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a federal statute that allowed railroads to abandon unprofitable lines without first bargaining with unions violated the Railway Labor Act (RLA). The RLA requires carriers and their employees to exert every reasonable effort to make agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, and working conditions. The Interstate Commerce Commission had permitted several railroads to abandon certain lines under a provision in another law which did not require prior negotiation with labor organizations representing railroad workers who would be affected by such abandonment. The court ruled that this statutory scheme did not violate the RLA because it fell within Congress's power over interstate commerce and its authority to balance competing interests in regulating economic activity.

In the dissenting opinion for Railway Labor Executives' Association et al. v. United States et al., Justice Douglas argued that the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had overstepped its authority by allowing a railroad company to abandon two of its lines without first obtaining approval from employee unions, as required by Section 5(2)(f) of the Interstate Commerce Act. He contended that this provision was designed to protect employees from arbitrary decisions made by their employers and should not be bypassed simply because it might cause delays or inconvenience in certain cases. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "control" under Section 5(4), asserting that it referred only to control through ownership or lease, not operational control as determined by ICC regulations. Thus, he believed that any changes in control must also comply with union agreements before being approved.