In the 1911 case Ex parte IN THE MATTER OF LEAF TOBACCO BOARD OF TRADE OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, PETITIONER, the Leaf Tobacco Board of Trade petitioned for a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Hough to vacate an order he had made in a bankruptcy proceeding. The Supreme Court denied this request on grounds that it lacked jurisdiction over such matters. The court explained that while they could issue writs necessary in aid of their existing jurisdiction, they couldn't use them as means to extend their power into areas where Congress hadn't granted authority. In other words, the Supreme Court can only exercise its supervisory powers over lower courts when explicitly authorized by law or when necessary to protect its own unimpaired functioning and independence.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Ex parte IN THE MATTER OF LEAF TOBACCO BOARD OF TRADE OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, 1911 argued that the court erred in its decision to deny a writ of mandamus. The dissenting justices believed that the petitioner had a clear legal right to have their application for incorporation processed by the Secretary of State. They disagreed with majority's interpretation of "public policy" and felt it was not within their jurisdiction or authority to decide what constituted public policy. Instead, they held that this determination should be left up to legislative bodies who are elected by citizens and thus more directly accountable for such decisions. Furthermore, they contended that if there were any doubts about whether incorporating would violate public policy, those doubts should be resolved in favor of allowing incorporation rather than denying it outright.