In the case of Ewing v. Mytinger & Casselberry, Inc., 1949, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Federal Security Administrator Paul G. Ewing and against Mytinger & Casselberry, Inc., a pharmaceutical company that was accused of misbranding its products under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). The FDCA allows for administrative seizure orders without prior hearing if there is probable cause to believe a product is misbranded or harmful. The court held that such procedures did not violate due process rights as long as judicial review was available after seizure. This decision upheld the power of federal agencies to take immediate action when public health may be at risk from potentially dangerous goods.

In the dissenting opinion for Ewing v. Mytinger & Casselberry, Inc., Justice Robert H. Jackson argued that the majority's decision allowed too much power to administrative agencies without sufficient judicial oversight or review. He contended that this case was not about whether a harmful product should be removed from the market, but rather who gets to make such decisions and under what standards of proof and procedure. Jackson believed that Congress did not intend for administrators alone to have final say on matters of public health without any meaningful opportunity for judicial review before action is taken by an agency. He expressed concern over potential abuses of power if administrative actions are left unchecked by courts, arguing it could lead to arbitrary government conduct infringing upon individual rights and liberties.