In United States v. Erie Railway Company, the United States Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the federal government had the power to regulate the rates charged by a railroad company. The case arose when the United States sued the Erie Railway Company for charging excessive rates for the transportation of goods. The United States argued that the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 gave the federal government the power to regulate the rates charged by the railroad. The Erie Railway Company argued that the Act was unconstitutional because it violated the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states. The Supreme Court held that the Interstate Commerce Act was constitutional and that the federal government had the power to regulate the rates charged by the railroad. The Court reasoned that the power to regulate interstate commerce was granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, and that the Act was a valid exercise of that power. The Court also held that the Act did not violate the Tenth Amendment because it did not interfere with the states' power to regulate intrastate commerce. The Court's decision in United States v. Erie Railway Company established the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce and set an important precedent for future cases involving the regulation of interstate commerce.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in United States v. Erie Railway Company, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established law and precedent. He argued that Congress had no authority to regulate interstate commerce under its power to tax or spend for public purposes, as it did not have a general police power over such matters. Furthermore, he contended that even if Congress had such authority, it could only be exercised through legislation passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by the President; thus any attempt at regulation must come from an act of Congress rather than executive order or judicial decree. Finally, Justice Field noted that while there may be some instances where federal courts can intervene in state affairs due to their jurisdiction over certain areas like bankruptcy proceedings or admiralty cases, this case did not fall within those categories and therefore should remain solely within the purview of state courts.