In the case of Collins et al. v. Porter, Price Administrator in 1945, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving price controls during World War II. The plaintiffs were wholesale meat dealers who had been fined by Chester Bowles, then-Price Administrator for violating maximum price regulations set under the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942. They argued that these fines violated their Fifth Amendment rights as they constituted an unlawful taking without just compensation and due process of law. The court disagreed with this argument and upheld the constitutionality of such penalties imposed by administrative agencies to enforce wartime economic regulations. It held that these penalties did not constitute a "taking" within the meaning of Fifth Amendment but rather served as valid regulatory measures designed to control inflation during times of war or other national emergencies. Furthermore, it was also determined that there was no violation in terms of procedural due process since adequate notice and opportunity for hearing before imposition were provided according to statutory provisions.

In the dissenting opinion for Collins et al. v. Porter, Price Administrator, Justice Robert H. Jackson argued that the majority's interpretation of the Emergency Price Control Act was too broad and could lead to an abuse of power by administrative agencies in future cases. He contended that Congress did not intend for such a wide-ranging application when it passed this legislation during World War II as a temporary measure to control inflation and stabilize prices. Jackson believed that under normal circumstances, these types of disputes should be settled through private litigation rather than government intervention because they involve individual rights and freedoms protected by common law principles which are fundamental to American democracy.