In the case of Gibson et al. v. Berryhill et al., 1972, a group of licensed optometrists in Alabama who were employed by Lee Optical Company filed suit against the Alabama Board of Optometry after they received notice that their licenses would be revoked due to alleged violations of state law prohibiting corporate practice and fee-splitting arrangements with unlicensed persons. The plaintiffs argued that this was an attempt to eliminate competition as all members on the board had private practices and stood to benefit from removing these company-employed optometrists from business. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gibson, stating that when adjudicators have a substantial pecuniary interest in legal proceedings, it violates principles of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment for them to act as judges in those cases.

In the dissenting opinion for Gibson et al. v. Berryhill et al., Justice Rehnquist disagreed with the majority's decision to allow federal courts to intervene in ongoing state administrative proceedings, arguing that it violated principles of federalism and judicial restraint. He contended that such intervention should only occur when there is a clear violation of constitutional rights or if the state proceeding is inadequate to protect those rights, neither of which he believed was present in this case. Furthermore, he argued that allowing such intervention could potentially lead to an increase in litigation and undermine states' abilities to regulate their own affairs effectively.