While this decision did not have many broad implications, it did offer a more "common-sense" understanding of determining what constitutes a justiciable controversy.

In this complaint, the U.S. Government argued that the ICC's decision was capricious, arbitrary, and based on a misapplication of law.

Namely, it appeared that the lawsuit, as necessarily constructed by statute, caused the United States to sue itself.

Another facet of the suit that the Court addressed was the defendant's argument that the decision made by the ICC was not subject to judicial review.

The Court stated that the defendant's position relied too heavily on mere nomenclature rather than the facts of the case at hand.

The appearance of the Attorney General on both sides of the case was merely a function of the duties of his position rather than a necessary demonstration of the impossibility of suit.

The opinion remarked that, by this argument, "the order [of the ICC] is final and not reviewable by any court, even though entered arbitrarily, without substantial evidence, and in defiance of law."

In the final points, the Court found that a judicial review of the type brought by the Government against the railroads did not require a three-judge panel to make a ruling; rather, a single judge was the most appropriate course.