The United States Supreme Court case, UNITED STATES ET AL. v. BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD CO. ET AL., 1947, revolved around the interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Act and its application to railroads in wartime conditions. The U.S government sued Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., along with other railroad companies for overcharging them on freight rates during World War II when they transported war materials under a contract with fixed prices set by the government itself through an agency called Office of Defense Transportation (ODT). The railroads argued that these were not regular commercial transactions but rather "forced traffic" due to wartime exigencies and hence should be exempt from usual regulations or price controls imposed by Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). However, the Supreme Court ruled against this argument stating that even though it was forced traffic due to war circumstances, it did not change their character as 'transportation' subject to ICC's jurisdiction under Interstate Commerce Act.

In the dissenting opinion for United States et al. v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. et al., Justice Jackson, joined by Justices Black and Frankfurter, argued that the majority's decision to allow railroads to recover costs from the government for transporting military personnel during World War II was a departure from established legal principles regarding contract interpretation and unjust enrichment. They contended that there was no explicit agreement between the parties about these specific charges; rather, they were part of a larger negotiated rate which should not be dissected post-hoc in favor of one party over another. The dissent also expressed concern about setting precedent where private companies could seek additional compensation after providing services at agreed-upon rates during times of national emergency or war effort participation.