The U.S. Supreme Court case Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc., et al. v. Volpe, Secretary of Transportation, et al., 1970 revolved around the construction of a highway through Overton Park in Memphis by the Department of Transportation (DOT). The plaintiffs argued that this violated Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act which prohibits building transportation facilities through public parks if there is a feasible and prudent alternative route available or if such program includes all possible planning to minimize harm resulting from use. The District Court ruled in favor of DOT but was reversed by the Appeals court stating that summary judgment was inappropriate as there were factual disputes about whether other routes were feasible and prudent alternatives. On appeal to Supreme Court, it held that while courts should respect administrative decisions, they must also thoroughly review them when those decisions are challenged under "arbitrary and capricious" standard set forth in Administrative Procedure Act (APA). It remanded back for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

In the dissenting opinion for Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, Justice Black argued that the Secretary of Transportation had acted within his authority and discretion when he approved federal funding for a highway through Overton Park in Memphis. He contended that Congress intended to give the Secretary broad powers under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, including deciding whether there were "feasible and prudent" alternatives to using public parkland for transportation projects. Furthermore, Justice Black believed that courts should not second-guess such decisions unless they are arbitrary or capricious. In this case, he did not find any evidence suggesting an abuse of power by the Secretary; instead, he saw a careful consideration process involving local officials and citizens before making a decision based on several factors like cost-effectiveness and community impact.