In the Southern Pacific Railroad Company v. United States case of 1911, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute between the railroad company and the federal government regarding land grants. The U.S. Government had granted lands to Southern Pacific for railway construction under an 1866 statute but later claimed that certain sections were not included in this grant as they fell within indemnity limits of other railroads' grants, which were made prior to those given to Southern Pacific. The court held that these areas indeed belonged to previous grantees and thus could not be part of Southern Pacific's grant because at the time when their rights attached, these lands were already appropriated by Congress for other companies' use. Therefore, it was decided in favor of the United States.

In the dissenting opinion for Southern Pacific Railroad Company v. United States, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Act was incorrect. He believed that Congress intended to regulate all aspects of interstate commerce, including transportation within a single state if it forms part of a continuous journey across state lines. According to him, this included shipments like those in question in this case - goods shipped from one point in California to another via Arizona and Nevada. He contended that such transactions were not purely intrastate but rather formed part of an interconnected web of interstate commerce subject to federal regulation under the Constitution's Commerce Clause. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s view on rebates and discriminations by railroads as he felt they could lead to unfair trade practices which would be detrimental for fair competition among businesses.