The U.S. Supreme Court case Bowsher, Comptroller General of the United States, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., 1982 revolved around a dispute over patent rights and royalties for a drug developed by Merck & Co with federal funding assistance from National Institutes of Health (NIH). The central issue was whether the Comptroller General had authority to settle disputes between government agencies and private contractors under the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act. The court ruled in favor of Merck & Co., stating that Congress could not delegate executive powers to an officer controlled by Congress itself (the Comptroller General), as it violated separation-of-powers principles outlined in the Constitution. This decision effectively limited congressional control over executive functions.

In the dissenting opinion for Bowsher v. Merck & Co., Justice White argued that the Comptroller General's role in executing budget cuts under the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act did not violate separation of powers principles. He believed that Congress had a legitimate interest in controlling federal spending and could delegate this responsibility to an officer subject to its control, such as the Comptroller General. Furthermore, he contended that historical precedent supported this view since Congress has often delegated similar responsibilities without constitutional objection. The majority's decision, according to him, unnecessarily restricted congressional power and threatened important legislation aimed at reducing national debt.