In the case of United States et al. v. Carolina Freight Carriers Corp., 1941, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a trucking company could be exempt from paying social security taxes for its drivers based on their classification as independent contractors rather than employees. The court ruled in favor of the government, stating that despite having some characteristics of independent contractors, such as owning their own trucks and being able to choose when they worked, these drivers were still effectively controlled by Carolina Freight Carriers Corporation due to factors like fixed rates and routes set by the company. Therefore, they should be classified as employees under Social Security Act definitions which meant that Carolina Freight Carriers Corporation was liable for paying social security taxes on behalf of these workers.

In the dissenting opinion for United States et al. v. Carolina Freight Carriers Corp., it was argued that the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had overstepped its authority by attempting to regulate intrastate commerce, which is traditionally under state jurisdiction. The ICC's decision to extend federal regulation into this area was seen as a violation of states' rights and an unnecessary expansion of federal power. Furthermore, there were concerns about potential negative impacts on local businesses due to increased regulatory burdens imposed by the ICC's ruling. It was also pointed out that Congress did not explicitly grant such broad powers to the ICC when it established the agency, suggesting that this interpretation of its mandate may be incorrect.