In United States v. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway Company, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the federal government had the power to regulate interstate commerce. The case arose when the United States sued the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway Company for failing to comply with the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887. The Act prohibited railroads from charging different rates for the same service to different customers. The Railway Company argued that the Act was unconstitutional because it exceeded the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. The Supreme Court rejected the Railway Company's argument, holding that Congress had the power to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The Court reasoned that the power to regulate interstate commerce was necessary to ensure that the states did not interfere with each other's commerce. The Court also held that the Act was a valid exercise of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce, as it was designed to prevent discrimination in rates and ensure fair competition. The Court's decision in this case established the principle that Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. This power has been used to pass numerous laws, including the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Federal Aviation Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in United States v. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway Company. He argued that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and reason because it allowed a railroad company to be taxed on its property without being given due process of law as required by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Justice Field believed that if Congress had intended for such taxation to occur, they would have included language explicitly allowing it in either their legislation or regulations governing taxation of railroads; however, no such language existed at this time. Furthermore, he noted that while there may have been some ambiguity surrounding how taxes were applied to railroads prior to this case, any doubt should be resolved in favor of protecting citizens' rights under the Constitution rather than taking away those rights without clear authorization from Congress or other legal authority.