The Southern Railway Co. et al. v. Youngblood, Administratrix case in 1931 revolved around a dispute over the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). The plaintiff, Mrs. Youngblood, was seeking damages for the death of her husband who died while working on an interstate train due to negligence by his employer - Southern Railway Company and its co-defendants. The defendants argued that they were not liable as Mr.Youngblood's work did not directly involve interstate commerce at the time of his death; hence FELA should not apply to them. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mrs.Youngblood stating that under FELA it is enough if an employee is engaged in work substantially affecting interstate commerce even though he may be temporarily disconnected from such activities when injured or killed due to negligence by his employer(s). Therefore, since Mr.Youngblood’s duties involved both intrastate and interstate tasks which significantly affected trade between states, he was considered as being employed in interstate commerce at all times during his employment regardless of what specific task he was performing when injured.

In the dissenting opinion for Southern Railway Co. et al. v. Youngblood, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to allow a state court to impose liability on an interstate carrier for injuries sustained by one of its employees was inconsistent with federal law and precedent. He contended that Congress had already established a comprehensive scheme for addressing such matters through the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). By allowing states to supplement or modify this scheme as they saw fit, he believed that the Court was undermining congressional authority and creating unnecessary confusion in an area of law where uniformity is critical due to its impact on interstate commerce. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential unfairness towards defendants who could now be held liable under different standards depending upon which state's courts heard their case.