In the 1893 case of Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not delegate its judicial power to an administrative agency such as the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). The ICC had been given authority by Congress to regulate railroad rates and practices, but when it attempted to enforce subpoenas against certain individuals who refused to testify or produce documents in a rate dispute, they challenged this action on constitutional grounds. The court held that while administrative agencies can carry out executive functions like fact-finding investigations and making recommendations based on those facts, they cannot exercise judicial powers such as enforcing their own orders through contempt proceedings. This decision helped establish important limits on the powers of federal regulatory agencies.

In the dissenting opinion for Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, Justice Brewer argued that the U.S. Supreme Court had overstepped its bounds by allowing a federal agency (the Interstate Commerce Commission) to exercise judicial powers in enforcing compliance with its orders through contempt proceedings in federal courts. He believed this was an unconstitutional blending of executive and judicial functions, violating the separation of powers principle inherent in the Constitution. Brewer contended that only courts should have such power because they are equipped with procedural safeguards like trial by jury and due process protections which agencies lack. He warned against expanding government power at the expense of individual liberties, cautioning that it could lead to tyranny if left unchecked.