The Bowles v. Willingham case in 1943 involved the Price Administrator, Chester Bowles, and a group of landlords from Los Angeles who were accused of violating the Emergency Price Control Act (EPCA) by charging rents higher than those set by regulation. The defendants argued that the EPCA was unconstitutional because it delegated legislative power to an administrative agency without providing adequate standards for its exercise. They also claimed that their due process rights had been violated as they were not given a fair opportunity to present their defense before being penalized. However, the Supreme Court ruled against them stating that Congress has broad powers during times of war and national emergency which includes regulating economic activities such as rent control. It further held that there was no delegation issue since Congress provided clear policy guidelines within EPCA for setting maximum prices and rents. As per due process claims, they found no violation as defendants could challenge regulations or orders under EPCA through protest proceedings before enforcement action is taken.

In the dissenting opinion for Bowles, Price Administrator v. Willingham et al., Justice Owen Roberts disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942. He argued that Congress did not intend to give such broad power to an administrative agency without clear and specific language in the statute itself. In his view, allowing a government agency to regulate private contracts between landlords and tenants was an overreach of governmental authority that violated principles of federalism and individual rights. Furthermore, he contended that even if Congress had intended this result, it would be unconstitutional because it interfered with states' traditional police powers in regulating property relationships within their borders.