In the case of Federal Communications Commission v. Sanders Brothers Radio Station, 1939, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The Sanders Brothers Radio Station had filed a complaint against FCC's decision to grant a license to another radio station which they claimed would cause harmful interference with their own broadcasts. However, the court held that under Section 402(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, only "parties in interest" could appeal decisions made by FCC and since Sanders Brothers were not directly affected or injured by this licensing decision but merely faced increased competition due to it; they did not qualify as such parties. Therefore, their complaint was dismissed on grounds that they lacked standing for judicial review. This ruling affirmed FCC's authority over broadcast licensing and set an important precedent regarding who can challenge its decisions.

In the dissenting opinion for the Federal Communications Commission v. Sanders Brothers Radio Station case, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold FCC's refusal of a license renewal application from Sanders Brothers Radio Station was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that this ruling violated fundamental principles of administrative law and due process rights. They contended that before denying an application for license renewal, there should be a hearing where evidence is presented and evaluated based on its merits. In their view, such hearings are essential in ensuring fairness and transparency in administrative proceedings as they provide applicants with an opportunity to defend themselves against any allegations or concerns raised by regulatory bodies like FCC. Furthermore, they expressed concern over potential abuse of power by regulatory agencies if left unchecked without procedural safeguards such as evidentiary hearings prior to making decisions affecting individual rights or interests.