In the case of Gardner, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. Toilet Goods Association Inc., 1966, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on whether a regulation by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was constitutional. The FDA had issued an order that allowed its inspectors to access factories at any time without prior notice to ensure compliance with color additive regulations. If a company denied access to these inspectors or hindered their work in any way, they could be barred from certifying color additives for use in foods or drugs until full inspection rights were restored. The Toilet Goods Association challenged this rule as unconstitutional because it did not provide companies with an opportunity for judicial review before penalties were imposed. However, the Supreme Court held that pre-enforcement review was not necessary under due process principles since there would still be ample opportunities for judicial review after enforcement action is taken by the FDA. The court also found no violation of Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures because inspections are part of highly regulated industries like food production where expectations of privacy are reduced.

In the dissenting opinion for Gardner v. Toilet Goods Association, Justice Black argued that the Court should have decided on whether or not FDA's regulation was constitutional instead of avoiding a decision based on ripeness doctrine. He believed that this case presented an actual controversy and disagreed with the majority’s view that no hardship would occur if a decision were postponed until enforcement proceedings began. According to him, businesses faced uncertainty about their legal obligations under the challenged regulation which could lead to significant financial consequences and potential criminal penalties. Therefore, he felt it was inappropriate for courts to avoid deciding such important questions when they are properly presented in cases like this one.