The Hecht Company v. Bowles, Price Administrator case in 1943 revolved around the issue of whether or not a court could grant an injunction to enforce compliance with price regulations set by the Emergency Price Control Act (EPCA) without finding that the defendant had violated these regulations. The Hecht Company was accused of selling commodities at prices exceeding those established by EPCA and was subsequently ordered to comply with its provisions under threat of contempt charges if it failed to do so. However, no actual violation had been proven against them yet. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of The Hecht Company, stating that while courts have broad powers under common law to issue injunctions as they see fit, this power is limited when it comes to statutory directives like EPCA which specifically outline remedies for non-compliance - such as civil suits brought by aggrieved customers or actions initiated by government administrators seeking damages on behalf of United States citizens. Therefore, unless there's evidence proving a party has indeed violated such statutes and caused harm warranting injunctive relief, courts cannot simply impose their own sanctions preemptively.

In the dissenting opinion for The Hecht Company v. Bowles, Price Administrator case, Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision undermined the power of administrative agencies and their ability to enforce regulations effectively. He contended that Congress had given these agencies broad powers to ensure compliance with wartime price controls and other regulatory measures. By denying them the authority to issue cease-and-desist orders without proving irreparable harm or balancing equities, he believed it would make it more difficult for such agencies to perform their duties efficiently and promptly in times of national emergency. Furthermore, he expressed concern about judicial overreach into legislative territory by interpreting statutory language in a way not intended by Congress.