In the case of Alabama Power Co. v. Ickes, Federal Emergency Administrator of Public Works et al., the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Harold L. Ickes and against Alabama Power Company (APC). APC had filed a lawsuit to prevent federal funding from being used for the construction of a competing power plant by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), arguing that it would cause irreparable financial harm to their business due to increased competition. However, the court held that APC did not have legal standing because they could not prove direct injury as required under Article III of Constitution - any potential future losses were speculative at best and thus insufficient grounds for suit. The decision reinforced principles limiting access to judicial review only when there is concrete evidence demonstrating imminent harm or damage.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Alabama Power Co. v. Ickes, argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of standing and judicial review. The dissenters believed that Alabama Power Company had demonstrated sufficient injury to its interests to have standing to challenge federal funding for a competing power project under the Public Works Administration (PWA). They contended that if such governmental actions could not be challenged by those whose economic interests were directly affected, then there would be no effective check on potential abuses of executive discretion under New Deal programs like PWA. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view that this was essentially a political question beyond judicial purview; instead, they saw it as an issue involving legal rights and obligations which courts are fully competent to adjudicate.