In the case of Allen, Chairman, Twelfth Region Wage Stabilization Board, et al. v. Grand Central Aircraft Co., 1953, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with issues related to wage stabilization and labor disputes. The Grand Central Aircraft Company had increased wages for its employees without obtaining approval from the Wage Stabilization Board as required by Defense Production Act regulations during wartime or national emergencies. When ordered by the board to rescind these increases and refund excess payments already made to workers, they refused on grounds that their action was justified under a collective bargaining agreement with their unionized workforce which predated said regulations. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Allen (representing the government), stating that while collective bargaining agreements are important in maintaining industrial peace and stability; they cannot supersede federal laws aimed at stabilizing economy during periods of crisis such as war or national emergency. Therefore it held that companies must comply with wage control orders issued under authority granted by Congress even if those orders conflict with terms agreed upon in existing labor contracts.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Allen, Chairman, Twelfth Region Wage Stabilization Board, et al. v. Grand Central Aircraft Co., 1953 argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of administrative law and an unwarranted intrusion into the domain of executive agencies by judicial power. The dissenters believed that it was not within their purview to review decisions made by wage stabilization boards unless there were clear violations of constitutional rights or statutory provisions. They contended that such interference undermines these bodies' ability to function effectively and efficiently as they are constantly under threat of litigation for any perceived misstep or error in judgment. Furthermore, they held that this approach could potentially lead to inconsistent rulings across different regions due to varying interpretations by local courts which would defeat the purpose behind establishing national standards for wages through centralized boards.