In the 1926 case of United States ex rel. Norwegian Nitrogen Products Company, Inc. v. United States Tariff Commission, the Supreme Court ruled on whether or not a foreign corporation could challenge an action by a U.S federal agency in court without first exhausting all administrative remedies available to it within that agency. The Norwegian Nitrogen Products Company had sought judicial review of tariffs imposed by the U.S Tariff Commission before seeking redress through administrative channels within the commission itself. The Supreme Court held that while corporations generally have standing to sue in federal courts, they must first exhaust all possible avenues for relief within an agency before resorting to litigation against it in court.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of United States ex rel. Norwegian Nitrogen Products Company, Inc. v. United States Tariff Commission, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a tariff on imported nitrogen products based on their potential use in explosives rather than their actual use as fertilizer. He argued that this interpretation was not consistent with Congress' intent when it passed the relevant tariff law and that it unfairly penalized importers who were using these products for legitimate agricultural purposes. Furthermore, he contended that there was no evidence presented to suggest any significant risk of these imports being diverted towards explosive production instead of agriculture.