The U.S. Supreme Court case St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company et al. v. Public Service Commission of the State of Missouri in 1922 revolved around a dispute between the railway company and the state commission over rate regulation for intrastate commerce, specifically regarding freight rates within Missouri's borders. The railway company argued that it was being unfairly treated as its interstate rates were regulated by federal law while its intrastate rates were controlled by state law, leading to discrepancies and inconsistencies in pricing structures which they believed violated their rights under both the Commerce Clause and Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. However, after reviewing evidence presented from both sides, including financial data showing no significant harm or discrimination against interstate commerce due to this dual system of regulation, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Missouri's Public Service Commission stating that there was no violation on part of either clause mentioned above because states have power to regulate matters concerning purely internal affairs unless Congress has enacted legislation covering such issues or if these regulations directly conflict with national policy.

In the dissenting opinion for St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company v. Public Service Commission of Missouri, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision that upheld a state law requiring railroads to provide free transportation for members and employees of the state public service commission while they were on official business. He argued that this requirement was an unconstitutional taking without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment because it forced private companies to subsidize government operations without any direct benefit in return. Furthermore, he contended that such laws could lead to abuse by encouraging excessive travel at company expense or even bribery through offering free passes as favors. Thus, he believed these types of regulations should be struck down unless there is clear evidence showing their necessity and reasonableness.