In the 1931 case of Crowell v. Benson, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not an administrative agency had constitutional authority to make factual determinations that were binding on federal courts in disputes between private parties. The dispute arose when a ship repair worker filed for compensation under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act after being injured on the job. His employer disputed his claim, arguing that he wasn't eligible because he wasn't technically their employee at the time of injury and also disputing where exactly it occurred. The Deputy Commissioner sided with Benson (the worker), prompting Crowell (the employer) to challenge this decision in court by questioning its constitutionality - specifically if such decisions should be made by juries instead of agencies like these. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of upholding Congress’s power to assign fact-finding functions to non-Article III bodies while still preserving judicial review over questions regarding Constitutional rights and jurisdictional facts – thus affirming administrative law's legitimacy within American legal system.

In the dissenting opinion for Crowell v. Benson, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., joined by Justices Louis Brandeis and Harlan Fiske Stone, argued that the majority's decision to allow federal courts to review factual findings of administrative agencies was an overreach of judicial power. They contended that Congress had constitutionally delegated authority to these specialized agencies due to their expertise in specific areas such as workers' compensation claims under consideration in this case. The dissenters believed that allowing courts to reevaluate these decisions undermined the purpose and efficiency of administrative bodies. Furthermore, they warned against setting a precedent where judges could substitute their judgment for those with more relevant knowledge or experience on certain matters.