In the 1933 case Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Pottorff, Receiver, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Texas & Pacific Railway Co., reversing a decision by the Kansas Supreme Court that had held them liable for damages to property caused by sparks from one of their locomotives. The plaintiff's land was located in Oklahoma and he argued that since his land was not adjacent to railway tracks but rather some distance away, it should be considered as part of interstate commerce subject to federal law which did not hold railways responsible for such damage unless negligence could be proven. The court agreed with this argument stating that state laws cannot impose liability on railroads involved in interstate commerce for unintentional fires started outside their right-of-way without proof of negligence.

In the dissenting opinion for Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Pottorff, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring railroads to maintain fences along their tracks violated principles of federalism and interfered with interstate commerce. The dissenting justices believed that this issue should be regulated at the federal level due to its impact on interstate travel and trade, rather than being left up to individual states. They also expressed concern about potential inconsistencies in safety standards if each state were allowed to set its own regulations regarding railroad fencing requirements. Furthermore, they contended that such laws could place an undue burden on railway companies by forcing them to comply with potentially varying rules across different jurisdictions.