In the 1895 case of Texas and Pacific Railway Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). The railway company had challenged an ICC order to cease charging higher rates for shorter distances than longer ones on its line. However, the court upheld that under federal law, specifically the Act to Regulate Commerce passed by Congress in 1887, it was within ICC's power to regulate railroads' interstate commerce practices including their rate structures. This decision reinforced ICC's authority over railroad companies and affirmed that they must comply with regulations aimed at ensuring fair pricing for consumers regardless of distance traveled.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Texas and Pacific Railway Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission argued that the court majority had overstepped its boundaries by interpreting the law rather than simply applying it. The dissenters believed that Congress, not the courts, should be responsible for defining what constitutes a "reasonable" rate for railway companies to charge their customers. They contended that if Congress deemed a particular rate as reasonable, then it was not within the judiciary's purview to question or alter this determination based on their own interpretation of reasonableness. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative impacts on commerce due to uncertainty created by judicial interference with established rates set by regulatory bodies like the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). In essence, they advocated for clear separation of powers between legislative and judicial branches while emphasizing respect for decisions made by administrative agencies tasked with regulating specific industries.