In the 1947 case of Lichter et al., doing business as Southern Fireproofing Co. v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on issues related to war contracts during World War II. The petitioners were contractors who had been paid by the government for their services and later subjected to a "renegotiation" process under which they were required to return excessive profits deemed unreasonable or exorbitant. They challenged this renegotiation process as unconstitutional, arguing it violated due process rights and constituted an illegal delegation of legislative power. The court upheld the constitutionality of these renegotiations, stating that Congress has broad powers in times of war including regulating economic matters such as contract payments. It also held that there was no unlawful delegation because Congress provided sufficient standards guiding administrative action in determining what constitutes excessive profits. This decision affirmed governmental authority to regulate wartime economy and ensure fairness in public contracting processes even after payment has been made.

In the dissenting opinion for Lichter et al., Doing Business as Southern Fireproofing Co., v. United States, Justice Frankfurter argued that the Renegotiation Act was unconstitutional because it violated due process rights and delegated legislative power to an administrative agency without providing clear standards. He believed that Congress had failed to provide adequate guidelines for determining excessive profits and did not establish a proper procedure for renegotiating contracts. Furthermore, he expressed concerns about retroactive application of laws, arguing that businesses should have been able to predict their legal obligations at the time they entered into contracts with the government. In his view, applying new rules after-the-fact undermined fairness and stability in contractual relationships.