In Champlin Refining Co. v. United States et al., the Supreme Court ruled on whether a fine imposed by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) was constitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The ICC had fined Champlin Refining Company for failing to maintain and submit records related to its interstate petroleum shipments, as required by federal law. The company argued that it did not have fair notice of what constituted an offense because regulations were vague and ambiguous, thus violating their due process rights. The Supreme Court agreed with Champlin's argument, ruling in favor of them 5-3. They held that while Congress has broad power to delegate regulatory authority to agencies like ICC, those agencies must provide clear guidelines about what constitutes a violation so individuals or companies can understand how they are expected to behave under law; otherwise it would be unconstitutional. This case established important precedent regarding administrative regulation enforcement: if rules are too vague or unclear then they cannot be enforced since this violates due process rights which require fair notice before punishment is given for violations.

In the dissenting opinion for Champlin Refining Co. v. United States, Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision to uphold a fine against Champlin Refining Company was based on an incorrect interpretation of the relevant statute. He contended that Congress did not intend for such fines to be levied in cases where companies failed to maintain records as required by law but had not committed any other violations related to oil production or pricing regulations. The justice believed that this punitive measure should only apply when there is evidence of fraudulent activity or attempts at price manipulation, neither of which were present in this case according to him. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on legislative history and administrative practice instead of focusing solely on statutory language and intent.