The Railroad Commission Cases, Stone & Others v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, was a landmark Supreme Court case that established the power of state governments to regulate the railroad industry. The case involved a dispute between the Texas Railroad Commission and the Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, a New York-based financial institution. The Railroad Commission had imposed a rate cap on the railroad industry, which the Trust Company argued was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Railroad Commission, finding that the rate cap was a valid exercise of the state's police power. The Court held that the state had the authority to regulate the railroad industry in order to protect the public interest. The Court also held that the rate cap was a reasonable exercise of the state's power, as it was necessary to protect the public from the potential abuses of the railroad industry. The decision in the Railroad Commission Cases established the power of state governments to regulate the railroad industry, and it has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving the regulation of other industries. The case also established the principle that states have the authority to regulate industries in order to protect the public interest.

In the Railroad Commission Cases; Stone & Others v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not a Texas law that regulated railroad rates and freight charges was constitutional. The majority opinion held that it did violate the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause as well as other provisions of federal law. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on several grounds. He argued that Congress had no power to regulate interstate commerce in such a manner and thus could not interfere with state laws regulating intrastate commerce like those at issue here. Furthermore, he believed that even if Congress did have such authority, it should be exercised sparingly so as to preserve states’ rights under the Tenth Amendment and protect their citizens from unreasonable regulations imposed by distant legislatures who are unfamiliar with local conditions. Finally, he noted that there were many instances where similar legislation had been upheld by both state courts and lower federal courts without any interference from Congress or this Court itself—thus indicating its constitutionality in these cases too