In the case of United States and Interstate Commerce Commission v. New River Company et al., 1923, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a coal company's private railroad line fell under the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). The New River Company argued that its rail line, used for transporting coal from mines to public railways, should not be subject to ICC regulation as it did not engage in interstate commerce. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this argument. It held that since these railway lines were an integral part of a continuous stream of interstate transportation - even though they only operated within one state - they were indeed subject to federal regulation by ICC. This decision expanded federal regulatory power over intrastate commercial activities when those activities are closely tied or contribute significantly towards interstate commerce.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States and Interstate Commerce Commission v. New River Company et al., 1923, argued that the Supreme Court should not have jurisdiction over this matter as it was essentially a dispute between private parties about property rights rather than an issue of public concern. The dissenters believed that the majority's decision to uphold federal regulation over intrastate commerce was an unwarranted expansion of federal power into areas traditionally governed by state law. They contended that such intrusion could potentially undermine states' rights and disrupt local economies. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "commerce" under the Commerce Clause, arguing it was too broad and would open up virtually all economic activity to potential federal regulation.