In the case of Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States in 1962, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that an administrative order by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) was invalid due to insufficient explanation for its decision-making process. The ICC had ordered certain trucking companies to cease operations on grounds they were engaging in unfair competition with railroads, without providing a detailed rationale for this conclusion or addressing contrary evidence presented by these companies during hearings. The court held that such lack of transparency violated principles of administrative law and procedural fairness as it did not allow affected parties to understand and challenge regulatory decisions impacting them effectively. This ruling reinforced requirements for federal agencies to provide clear reasoning behind their actions when regulating businesses under their jurisdiction.

In the dissenting opinion for Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, it was argued that the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had not overstepped its bounds in ordering a cease and desist against certain practices by trucking companies. The dissent maintained that the ICC's decision was based on substantial evidence and should be upheld. They believed that the majority opinion failed to give due deference to administrative expertise of ICC and instead substituted their own judgment for that of an agency with specialized knowledge in this field. Furthermore, they contended that if every order from an administrative body required detailed explanations as demanded by the court's majority view, it would place undue burdens on these agencies which could hinder their ability to function effectively.