In the case of Railroad Commission of Wisconsin et al. v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company in 1921, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving state and federal jurisdiction over railroad rates. The Wisconsin Railroad Commission had ordered reduced intrastate freight rates which were challenged by the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company as being confiscatory and thus violating their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to due process. The court held that while states have power to regulate commerce within their borders, they cannot do so in a way that infringes upon federally regulated interstate commerce or violates constitutional protections for property owners against unjust seizure or regulation without fair compensation (due process). In this case, it was determined that evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate such violation hence ruling favored Wisconsin's right to set its own rail rates.

In the dissenting opinion for Railroad Commission of Wisconsin et al. v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, Justice Holmes argued that the court should defer to state regulatory agencies' expertise in setting rates for public utilities such as railroads. He contended that courts are not equipped with the necessary knowledge or experience to determine fair and reasonable rates for these services. Instead, they should only intervene when there is clear evidence of constitutional violation or abuse of power by a regulatory body. In this case, he believed no such violation had occurred and thus disagreed with the majority's decision to overturn the rate set by Wisconsin's railroad commission on grounds it was confiscatory and violated due process rights under Fourteenth Amendment.