In the case of Morgan et al. v. United States et al., 1937, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving agricultural marketing orders issued by the Secretary of Agriculture under authority granted by Congress in the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937. The Morgans, who were livestock dealers from Louisiana, challenged an order that set minimum prices for live poultry sold in New York City and argued that it was arbitrary and capricious because they had not been given a fair hearing before its issuance. They also claimed their due process rights were violated as they weren't allowed to cross-examine witnesses or present evidence during hearings held by USDA officials prior to issuing this order. The Supreme Court sided with the Morgans stating that while administrative agencies have broad powers, those subject to regulation are entitled to procedural fairness including notice and opportunity for hearing which includes presenting evidence and cross-examining opposing witnesses. This decision established important principles regarding administrative law - particularly about what constitutes a "fair hearing" within administrative proceedings.

In the dissenting opinion for Morgan et al. v. United States et al., Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a New York law that regulated milk prices, arguing it violated due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. He contended that Congress had not provided sufficient standards or guidelines in its delegation of authority to administrative agencies, which he believed led to arbitrary and capricious decisions by these entities. Furthermore, he argued that such broad delegation was unconstitutional as it allowed non-legislative bodies to make laws - a power reserved solely for Congress according to him. He also expressed concerns about procedural fairness during hearings conducted by administrative agencies and criticized their lack of impartiality and transparency.