. Robinson v. Iron Railway Co. was a Supreme Court case decided in 1877. The case involved a dispute between the Iron Railway Company and the plaintiff, William Robinson, over the company’s refusal to pay him wages for his labor. Robinson had been hired by the company to work on a railroad line, but the company refused to pay him for his work. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Robinson, finding that the company had violated the Thirteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude. The Court held that the company’s refusal to pay Robinson for his labor constituted a form of involuntary servitude, and thus violated the Thirteenth Amendment. The Court’s decision in Robinson v. Iron Railway Co. was significant in that it established the principle that employers must pay their employees for their labor. This decision was a major step forward in the protection of workers’ rights, and it has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving labor disputes.

. In the Supreme Court case of Robinson v. Iron Railway Co., Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on an interpretation of state law rather than federal common law, and thus should not be binding precedent for future cases. He further argued that Congress had never intended to preempt state laws with respect to railroad companies, as they were already subject to regulation by both states and the federal government at the time this case arose. Additionally, he noted that while it may have been reasonable for Congress to pass legislation regulating interstate commerce in order to protect citizens from monopolies or other unfair practices, such regulations could only be applied prospectively—not retroactively—and thus could not apply here since this dispute occurred prior to any such legislation being passed. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that allowing states' rights over interstate railroads would ultimately lead to greater protection for consumers and more efficient operations overall; therefore, his dissent sought reversal of the majority's ruling so as not interfere with these important interests.