In the 1918 case Ex parte Wagner, trading as The American Mechanical Toy Company, et al., petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Commissioner of Patents to issue a patent for an invention. The Supreme Court denied their request. It was determined that the Commissioner had not abused his discretion in refusing to grant a patent because he found that there was no new or useful process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter involved in the application. Furthermore, it was held that courts cannot interfere with discretionary actions taken by public officers within their jurisdiction unless such actions are arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, since there were no grounds for alleging abuse of discretion on part of the Commissioner's refusal to grant a patent due to lack of novelty and usefulness in invention claimed by petitioners; hence they could not be compelled through judicial intervention.

The dissenting opinion in Ex parte Wagner, a 1918 U.S. Supreme Court case, argued that the majority's decision to uphold an injunction against striking workers was incorrect and overstepped judicial boundaries. The dissenters believed that the court had no right to interfere with labor disputes unless there was clear evidence of illegal activity or imminent threat of violence. They contended that peaceful strikes were a legitimate means for workers to negotiate better conditions and wages, and thus should be protected under law rather than suppressed by it. Furthermore, they criticized the majority's reliance on vague notions of "public interest" as justification for their ruling, arguing this could easily be manipulated to suppress worker rights in favor of business interests.