The U.S. Supreme Court case Red Ball Motor Freight, Inc., et al. v. Shannon et al., Doing Business as E. & R. Shannon in 1963 revolved around a dispute over the Interstate Commerce Act's provisions regarding motor carrier liability for damage to goods during transport and whether or not they could be altered by contract between shipper and carrier prior to shipment loss or damage occurring. Red Ball Motor Freight had contracted with E&R Shannon, agreeing that any claims against Red Ball would be void unless filed within nine months of delivery date (or reasonable time if undelivered). When cargo was damaged in transit, Shannons failed to file a claim within this period but sued after the deadline passed. The court held that such contractual stipulations were unenforceable because they violated public policy under the Interstate Commerce Act which mandates carriers' responsibility for safe transportation of goods entrusted to them until delivered safely at their destination; thus protecting shippers from potential abuses by carriers who might otherwise limit their own liability through contracts.

In the dissenting opinion for Red Ball Motor Freight, Inc., et al. v. Shannon et al., it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring interstate motor carriers to maintain an agent within the state for service of process was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles of federalism. The dissent contended that this requirement imposed an undue burden on interstate commerce by forcing companies to maintain a physical presence in every state they operate in, even if their operations are minimal or transient. This could potentially discourage smaller businesses from expanding into new markets due to increased costs and regulatory complexity. Furthermore, it was pointed out that there were other less burdensome means available for states to ensure they can serve process on corporations operating within their borders without infringing upon federal jurisdiction over interstate commerce.