The U.S. Supreme Court case Bowsher v. Synar (1985) revolved around the constitutionality of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, also known as the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act. The act aimed to reduce federal budget deficit by giving Comptroller General power to make necessary cuts if Congress failed to reach targeted maximum deficit amounts each fiscal year. However, it was challenged on grounds that it violated separation of powers principle in Constitution because Comptroller General is part of legislative branch but was given executive functions under this law. In a 7-2 decision, Supreme Court ruled that these provisions were indeed unconstitutional as they gave excessive control over execution of laws to Congress via its agent - Comptroller General - thereby violating doctrine of separation-of-powers.

In the dissenting opinion for Bowsher v. Synar, Justice White argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established precedent regarding separation of powers and an unnecessary intrusion into legislative affairs. He contended that Congress had not violated any constitutional principles by delegating budget-cutting authority to the Comptroller General because this role did not involve final policymaking or execution of law but rather implementation of policies already set by Congress. Furthermore, he maintained that even if there were some encroachment on executive power, it would be justified given the urgent need for fiscal responsibility in government spending. The dissent also criticized the majority's interpretation of removal powers as overly rigid and inconsistent with previous rulings allowing flexibility based on practical considerations.