The Employers' Liability Cases of 1907 were a pair of U.S. Supreme Court cases that challenged the constitutionality of the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) passed by Congress in 1906. This act was designed to protect railroad workers from injuries on the job, making it easier for them to sue their employers for damages. The court ruled against FELA, declaring it unconstitutional because it exceeded Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. The majority opinion held that while Congress could regulate interstate commerce, this did not extend to providing personal injury protections for employees involved in such commerce unless they were directly engaged in interstate transportation at the time of injury. In essence, these cases established limits on federal authority over matters traditionally left to state law and highlighted tensions between states’ rights and federal powers.

The dissenting opinion in the Employers' Liability Cases of 1907 argued that Congress had the constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce, including employer liability for worker injuries. The justices contended that railroads were instrumentalities of interstate commerce and thus fell under federal jurisdiction. They believed that accidents occurring during such work could affect trade between states, thereby justifying Congressional intervention. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's narrow interpretation of "commerce," arguing instead for a broader understanding encompassing not only buying and selling but also transportation and communication integral to commercial transactions. This broad view would include railroad operations within its scope. Therefore, according to this perspective, the Employers’ Liability Act was constitutionally valid as it sought to regulate an aspect directly related to interstate commerce – employee safety on railroads.