In the case of International Postal Supply Company v. Bruce (1903), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bruce, who was a Postmaster General at that time. The dispute arose when International Postal Supply Company sued him for refusing to approve their postage stamp-affixing machines for use in post offices across the country as required by law. The company claimed that his refusal was arbitrary and capricious, thus violating their rights under due process clause of Fifth Amendment to Constitution. However, Justice Holmes writing on behalf of court held that Postmaster General's decision not to approve these devices did not violate any constitutional right or legal duty owed to plaintiff because Congress had vested discretion in this matter solely with him and he acted within scope of his authority.

In the dissenting opinion for International Postal Supply Company v. Bruce, Justice Harlan argued that Congress did not intend to grant a monopoly over postage stamp production to the Postmaster General through its legislation. He believed that while Congress had given the Postmaster General authority over postal matters, it did not extend this power to include exclusive control of manufacturing and selling postage stamps. The majority's interpretation was seen as an unwarranted extension of governmental powers which could potentially infringe upon individual rights and liberties. Furthermore, he contended that if such monopolistic intent existed in lawmaking bodies, it should be explicitly stated rather than inferred from vague language or implications.