The U.S. Supreme Court case Federal Energy Administration et al. v. Algonquin SNG, Inc., et al., 1975 revolved around the constitutionality of a presidential proclamation imposing license fees on oil imports under the authority of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (TEA). The respondents, various companies involved in importing or using imported oil, argued that this action was beyond presidential power and violated their rights to due process and equal protection under law. However, the court upheld President Nixon's use of his delegated powers from Congress via TEA to impose these fees as part of an energy conservation measure during a time when domestic production could not meet demand for petroleum products. It ruled that such measures were within executive discretion provided by TEA and did not violate constitutional protections since they were rationally related to legitimate government objectives.

In the dissenting opinion for Federal Energy Administration v. Algonquin SNG, Inc., Justice Brennan argued that the majority's interpretation of Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act was too broad and gave excessive power to the President. He contended that Congress did not intend to grant such sweeping authority when it enacted this law in 1962. According to him, Section 232 should be read as only allowing presidential action on imports if they threaten national security by undermining domestic industries necessary for defense or essential civilian consumption during a time of war or emergency. The majority's broader reading would allow presidential intervention even if an import merely reduces profitability or competitiveness without posing any direct threat to national security. This expansive interpretation could potentially lead to abuse of executive power and undermine free trade principles enshrined in U.S law.