The United States Supreme Court case, UNITED STATES et al. v. NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, 1926 revolved around the interpretation of the Hepburn Act of 1906 which regulated railroads and prohibited them from offering rebates or special rates to certain shippers over others. The New York Central Railroad Company was accused by the U.S government of violating this act by providing coal at a reduced rate to its subsidiary companies for use in their locomotives while charging other customers higher prices for similar services. The railroad company argued that it had not violated any law as these transactions were internal and thus did not constitute discrimination against external customers. However, the Supreme Court ruled against New York Central Railroad Company stating that even though they provided cheaper coal to their subsidiaries, it still constituted an unfair practice under the Hepburn Act because those subsidiaries operated independently in some respects and competed with other businesses who were charged more for similar services. Therefore, such preferential treatment amounted to illegal discrimination according to federal laws regulating interstate commerce.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States v. New York Central Railroad Company argued that the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) did not have the authority to mandate a railroad company to construct and maintain an expensive bridge, as it was beyond their regulatory powers. The justices believed that such orders could lead to potential financial ruin for companies forced to comply with them, which would be detrimental for both businesses and consumers alike. They also expressed concerns about due process rights being violated by allowing administrative bodies like ICC too much power without judicial oversight or review. This decision, they felt, set a dangerous precedent where regulatory agencies could potentially overstep their boundaries under the guise of public interest.