The case of United States, Interstate Commerce Commission, and Swift Lumber Company v. Illinois Central Railroad Company et al., 1923 revolved around the issue of freight rates for lumber transportation by railroads. The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had ordered a reduction in these rates after finding them to be unreasonable and discriminatory against southern shippers as compared to those from the North. However, several railroad companies including Illinois Central Railroad challenged this order in court arguing that it was arbitrary and would result in revenue loss making their operations unsustainable. The Supreme Court upheld ICC's decision stating that its role is not just limited to preventing unjust discrimination but also includes ensuring reasonable charges for services provided by carriers under the Interstate Commerce Act. It further clarified that courts should not interfere with administrative decisions unless they are clearly unlawful or violate constitutional rights which wasn't found true in this case.

In the dissenting opinion for this case, it was argued that the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) did not have jurisdiction over intrastate rates. The dissenting justices believed that states should retain control over their own commerce and only when there is a direct effect on interstate commerce should federal intervention be allowed. They contended that in this particular case, Illinois Central Railroad Company's intrastate rates were not proven to negatively affect interstate commerce or create unjust discrimination against out-of-state shippers. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold ICC’s authority to regulate these rates under the Shreveport Doctrine - which allows federal regulation of intrastate matters if they impact interstate trade. They feared such broad interpretation would erode state powers and disrupt balance between state and federal governments.