The Supreme Court didn't administer railroad fees; they asserted Congress had the right to regulate commerce (including fees) between the states under the Article I, Section 8 Interstate Commerce Clause. Depending on the case, Article I, Section 9, may also have been relevant in some instances.
The Supreme Court heard a number of cases involving railroad transit in the 19th and early 20th centuries, so it's difficult to answer this question comprehensively without knowing which case or cases are being referenced.
Article I, Section 8 (excerpt)
The Congress shall have power to . . . regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
Article I, Section 9 (excerpt)
No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.
Wabash v. Illinois
Wabash v. Illinois
Illinois won. The Supreme Court upheld the Granger laws, establishing as constitutional the principle of public regulation of private businesses involved in serving the public interest.
Congress passes laws to regulate immigration, while the supreme court determines whether the regulations are constitutional.
The Supreme Court up held the Granger Laws by a vote of seven to two. . -Goosinater
munn vs Illinois
Court ruled that Georgia was not entitled to regulate the Cherokee nor to invade their lands.
Court ruled that Georgia was not entitled to regulate the Cherokee nor to invade their lands.
Supreme Court case of Munn v Illinois showed that states need to regulate certain businesses
FCC v. Pacifica
Homer Plessy
answer the question somebody...please?