In the case of Civil Aeronautics Board v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 1960, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Delta Airlines. The dispute arose when the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) ordered a re-routing of certain airlines to ensure that they served smaller communities and promoted competition between carriers. This order affected Delta's route from New Orleans to Dallas which was diverted through Shreveport and Monroe instead of its direct path. In response, Delta filed suit against CAB claiming this order exceeded their statutory authority under Section 401(g) of Federal Aviation Act as it did not promote "efficient service" or maintain "competition to the extent necessary". The Supreme Court agreed with Delta stating that while CAB had broad powers for public convenience and necessity, it could not disregard other factors such as efficiency or competitive considerations outlined by Congress in Section 401(g). Therefore, CAB’s decision was deemed arbitrary and capricious leading to reversal.

In the dissenting opinion for the Civil Aeronautics Board v. Delta Air Lines case, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a regulation requiring airlines to provide free transportation for Civil Aeronautics Board members and staff is an unconstitutional exercise of power. The dissenting justices believed that this requirement amounted to an unlawful taking of property without just compensation, violating the Fifth Amendment rights of airline companies. They also contended that such a rule could potentially lead to corruption or favoritism within regulatory agencies as officials might be influenced by these perks in their decision-making processes. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential abuse if other regulatory bodies were allowed similar privileges with industries under their jurisdiction.