The U.S. Supreme Court case Texas and Pacific Railway Company v. Abilene Cotton Oil Company in 1906 revolved around the issue of whether a shipper could sue a railroad for charging rates higher than those set by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). The Abilene Cotton Oil Company had sued the Texas and Pacific Railway, alleging that it charged more than what was established as reasonable by ICC. However, the railway company argued that they were following tariffs filed with ICC which were different from those deemed reasonable by ICC but not yet enforced due to ongoing litigation on them. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Texas and Pacific Railway, stating that when a carrier has complied with its statutory obligation to file tariffs with the ICC, shippers must seek relief for unreasonable rates through an administrative complaint before resorting to courts. This decision effectively limited shippers' ability to directly sue railroads over rate disputes under federal law until Congress amended this aspect of interstate commerce legislation.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Texas and Pacific Railway Company v. Abilene Cotton Oil Company argued that the majority's decision undermined the power of courts to provide relief for unjust or unreasonable rates set by railway companies. The dissent, led by Justice Harlan, contended that this ruling effectively stripped away any meaningful judicial review over rate disputes between shippers and railroads. They believed it was not Congress' intention to give such absolute power to a regulatory body like Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) without providing an avenue for court intervention when necessary. This interpretation would leave aggrieved parties with no recourse if they felt ICC's decisions were unfair or arbitrary. Thus, according to them, courts should retain their authority in determining whether rates are reasonable and just under common law principles while also considering ICC’s findings as persuasive but not binding evidence.