In the case of CIBA Corp. v. Weinberger, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare et al., 1972, the pharmaceutical company CIBA Corporation challenged a decision made by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA had ruled that certain drug products produced by CIBA were not effective for their intended use and therefore could not be sold in interstate commerce under federal law. The Supreme Court upheld this ruling on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit. In its decision, it emphasized that Congress had given broad authority to administrative agencies like FDA to make determinations about public health matters based on scientific evidence.

In the dissenting opinion for CIBA Corp. v. Weinberger, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) authority to regulate drug labeling even when there is no evidence of misbranding or potential harm to public health sets a dangerous precedent. The dissenters believed this interpretation of FDA’s powers could lead to an overreach by regulatory agencies in general, potentially stifering innovation and competition within industries such as pharmaceuticals. They also expressed concern about due process rights being violated if companies are not given adequate opportunity to challenge regulatory decisions before they take effect. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view that Congress intended for FDA’s power under Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) be so expansive without clear legislative language supporting this position.