In the case of Washington Terminal Co. v. Boswell, 1942, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Washington Terminal Company (WTC). The dispute arose when an employee named Boswell was injured while working for WTC and sought compensation under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), which provides relief to railroad workers who suffer job-related injuries. However, WTC argued that they were not a common carrier by rail engaged in interstate commerce as defined by FELA but rather provided terminal facilities for other companies that did meet this definition. Therefore, they claimed FELA's provisions should not apply to them or their employees. The court agreed with WTC’s argument stating that although it served railroads involved in interstate commerce, its own operations did not qualify it as such under FELA's terms and thus was exempt from liability under this act.

In the dissenting opinion for Washington Terminal Co. v. Boswell, Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of an injured worker was based on an incorrect interpretation of federal law. He contended that the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) should not apply because the plaintiff was not engaged in interstate commerce at the time of his injury, as required by FELA. Instead, he maintained that local laws should govern this case and under those laws, it would be difficult for Boswell to prove negligence on part of his employer - The Washington Terminal Company. Furthermore, he criticized how easily courts were allowing cases like these to fall under federal jurisdiction instead of state jurisdiction which could potentially undermine states’ rights and autonomy over their own legal affairs.