In the case of Japan Whaling Association et al. v. American Cetacean Society et al., 1985, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Japanese whalers. The American Cetacean Society and other environmental groups had sued Secretary of Commerce Malcolm Baldrige, arguing that he was required by law to certify to the President that Japan was diminishing the effectiveness of international fishery conservation programs due to its failure to adhere to quotas set by International Whaling Commission (IWC). Such certification could lead to economic sanctions against Japan under a 1971 federal statute known as Pelly Amendment. However, Justice Thurgood Marshall writing for majority held that whether or not such certification should be made is at discretion of Secretary and courts cannot compel him/her into making it if they believe circumstances do not warrant it.

In the dissenting opinion for Japan Whaling Association v. American Cetacean Society, Justice White disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Packwood-Magnuson Amendment and its application to this case. He argued that Congress intended for sanctions to be imposed on nations violating international whaling quotas set by International Whaling Commission (IWC). In his view, it was clear from legislative history that Congress wanted Secretary of Commerce to certify any nation not adhering to IWC regulations so as to trigger automatic sanction under Packwood-Magnuson Amendment. The majority’s decision effectively nullified Congressional intent by allowing executive branch discretion in enforcing these laws. Furthermore, he contended that judicial review should be available when there is a failure or refusal by an agency or official charged with carrying out statutory mandate; otherwise it would undermine rule of law if such decisions were unreviewable simply because they involved foreign policy considerations.