In the case of United States and Interstate Commerce Commission v. Alaska Steamship Company et al., 1919, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether or not the Interstate Commerce Act applied to transportation between Seattle, Washington and various ports in Alaska. The defendants argued that since Alaska was a territory rather than a state at this time, it should not be subject to these regulations. However, the court ruled against them stating that for purposes of commerce regulation under federal law, territories are treated as states. Therefore, shipping companies operating between U.S states and territories were subject to federal oversight by bodies like the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). This decision reinforced ICC's authority over interstate trade including those involving non-state entities such as U.S territories.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States and Interstate Commerce Commission v. Alaska Steamship Company et al., 1919, argued that the majority ruling was incorrect because it failed to properly interpret the Hepburn Act's provisions regarding water carriers. The dissenters believed that Congress intended for all water carriers engaged in interstate commerce to be subject to regulation by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), regardless of whether they were operating under a contract or common carriage basis. They pointed out that this interpretation would align with other federal regulations governing railroads and pipelines, which do not distinguish between different types of operations when determining regulatory jurisdiction. Furthermore, they contended that exempting certain types of water carriers from ICC oversight could lead to unfair competition and market distortions.