In the case of St. Louis, Brownsville & Mexico Railway Company v. United States in 1924, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving railway mail pay adjustments under the Act of Congress from July 28th, 1916. The act required that railroads be paid for transporting U.S. Mail based on space and weight rather than distance traveled as previously done. The St Louis, Brownsville & Mexico Railway Company argued they were owed additional compensation due to an increase in mail volume during World War I which had not been considered when their rate was set in 1917 by Postmaster General Albert Burleson using data from before the war period (1913-14). However, it was found that there were no provisions within this act allowing retroactive adjustment or consideration for extraordinary circumstances such as wartime conditions; therefore any changes would only apply prospectively after new rates are established through proper procedures outlined by law.

In the dissenting opinion for St. Louis, Brownsville & Mexico Railway Company v. United States (1924), it was argued that the Interstate Commerce Commission's decision to set rates should be respected unless there is clear evidence of error or abuse of power. The dissenting justices believed that courts should not substitute their judgment for that of administrative bodies in matters requiring special expertise and experience, such as rate-setting by a railway commission. They also expressed concern about judicial overreach into areas better left to legislative or executive branches, warning against undermining these institutions' authority and independence by second-guessing their decisions without sufficient cause.