In the case of Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Lorick in 1916, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving railway freight charges. The plaintiff, Lorick, had been charged higher rates for shipping goods over shorter distances than longer ones by Seaboard Air Line Railway Company. This was contrary to South Carolina state law which required railroads to charge proportionally less for shorter hauls than longer ones. The railroad company argued that federal law preempted this state regulation and thus they were not bound by it. The court held that while interstate commerce is generally under federal jurisdiction as per the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, states still have power to regulate local aspects of such commerce until Congress chooses to intervene specifically on those matters. Therefore, unless there's an explicit conflict with federal laws or policies regarding interstate trade and transportation pricing structures set forth by Congress or relevant regulatory bodies like Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), state regulations can apply. Thus in this case since no specific conflicting federal statute existed at that time concerning short-haul/long-haul price ratios for railways engaged in both intra-state and inter-state commerce; South Carolina’s rate-setting rules could be enforced against Seaboard without violating Supremacy Clause.

In the dissenting opinion for Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Lorick, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a South Carolina law that required railroads to provide equal facilities and services in all parts of the state. He argued that this law violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause because it unfairly targeted railroad companies without considering other businesses or industries. Furthermore, he contended that there was no evidence showing unequal treatment by these companies towards different regions within South Carolina. Therefore, according to him, there was no valid reason for imposing such restrictions on them alone while leaving others unaffected by similar regulations.