The United States Supreme Court case, United States v. Nixon, Biddle, and West (1914), centered around a dispute over the interpretation of the Hepburn Act of 1906 which regulated railroad rates. The U.S government sued George Nixon, Charles W. Biddle and Joseph H. West as receivers for the St Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company to recover penalties for charging more than maximum freight rates set by Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). The defendants argued that they were not liable because they had taken possession after these charges were made under previous management and also claimed that ICC's rate was so low it would cause financial ruin to their company if enforced strictly. However, the court ruled in favor of the U.S government stating that being appointed as receivers did not absolve them from liabilities incurred by prior management since they stepped into shoes of corporation upon appointment. Furthermore, it held that courts could not review or alter ICC’s decisions on reasonable rates unless there is clear evidence showing such decision is arbitrary or capricious.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States v. Nixon, Biddle, and West argued that the majority had overstepped its bounds by intervening in a matter best left to Congress. The dissenters believed that the Court was not equipped to handle such complex financial matters as those involved in this railroad receivership case. They also took issue with how the majority interpreted certain statutes related to railroads and their debts, arguing that these interpretations were overly broad and could lead to unintended consequences down the line. Furthermore, they disagreed with how much weight was given to past precedents during deliberations; they felt more consideration should have been given instead towards crafting a decision based on current circumstances rather than relying so heavily on previous rulings.