The Southern Pacific Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission case in 1910 revolved around the issue of whether or not the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had jurisdiction over intrastate rates that could potentially affect interstate commerce. The Southern Pacific Company, a railroad company, argued against this authority while ICC insisted on its power to regulate such matters under the Hepburn Act of 1906. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of ICC stating that it did indeed have jurisdiction over intrastate rates if they were found to directly impact interstate commerce. This ruling was significant as it expanded federal regulatory powers and affirmed the government's ability to intervene in state affairs for preserving commercial equality among states.

The dissenting opinion in the Southern Pacific Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission case argued that the majority's decision to uphold the ICC's authority to regulate railroad rates was a violation of constitutional principles. The dissenters believed that this ruling gave too much power to an administrative body, undermining the role of courts and infringing upon property rights protected by due process under law. They contended that only courts should have final say on rate reasonableness, not a regulatory commission like ICC. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential abuse of such broad powers granted to government agencies without judicial oversight or checks and balances system in place for protection against arbitrary decisions affecting private businesses' operations and profitability.