In the case of Marshall, Secretary of Labor, et al. v. Jerrico Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jerrico Inc., a company that had been fined by an administrative law judge for violating child labor laws under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The court held that it was not unconstitutional for civil penalties collected under FLSA to be used to fund enforcement activities because there was no evidence showing this arrangement created any bias or partiality among enforcement officials towards aggressive prosecution. Furthermore, they found no violation of due process rights as there were sufficient procedural safeguards in place such as judicial review and requirement for substantial evidence before imposing fines.

In the dissenting opinion for Marshall, Secretary of Labor, et al. v. Jerrico, Inc., Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the financial incentive structure in place for regional administrators under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) created a potential conflict of interest and could undermine impartiality in enforcement actions. He contended that because these administrators' budgets were partially funded by civil penalties collected from FLSA violations, they might be motivated to pursue cases not based on their merits but rather on their potential monetary value. This arrangement could lead to unjust prosecutions and potentially violate due process rights of defendants like Jerrico Inc., who was fined heavily for minor infractions. Therefore, he believed this case should have been remanded back to lower courts for further examination into whether such bias actually influenced decision-making processes.