In the case of Peters v. Hobby et al., 1954, Dr. Vivian M. Peters was dismissed from her position as a consultant to the U.S. Surgeon General by the Commission on Employee Loyalty due to alleged associations with communist organizations. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dr.Peters, stating that she had been denied procedural due process because she was not given an opportunity for a hearing before being dismissed and also did not receive any specific charges against her until after her dismissal which violated principles of administrative law and fairness under Fifth Amendment protections.

In the dissenting opinion for Peters v. Hobby et al., Justice Reed argued that the majority misinterpreted the Loyalty Review Board's role, which was to review and make recommendations rather than final decisions on loyalty cases. He contended that it was not within their purview to determine whether procedural due process had been followed in each case; instead, they were tasked with assessing if reasonable grounds existed to doubt an individual's loyalty based on available evidence. The decision of dismissal rested solely with a department head who could choose whether or not to follow these recommendations. Therefore, he believed that Mr. Peters' rights were not violated by this procedure as his termination resulted from a decision made by his superiors at the Federal Security Agency following established procedures outlined in Executive Order 9835.