In the case of Porter, Price Administrator v. Dicken et al., 1945, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Porter, who was acting as a price administrator at that time. The issue revolved around whether or not an injunction could be issued against him for enforcing maximum rent regulations under the Emergency Price Control Act (EPCA) without first exhausting administrative remedies provided by EPCA itself. The defendants had argued that they were entitled to judicial review before any enforcement action could take place and sought injunctive relief from such actions being taken against them. However, the court held that Congress intended for all disputes arising under EPCA to be resolved through its own comprehensive scheme of administrative procedures and subsequent limited judicial review rather than through traditional channels of judicial intervention like injunctions.

In the dissenting opinion for Porter v. Dicken, Justice Robert H. Jackson disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 and its application to this case. He argued that Congress did not intend to give administrators such broad power over private contracts without clear statutory language supporting it. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuse of administrative authority if left unchecked by judicial review or legislative oversight. According to him, allowing an administrator to unilaterally alter a contract between two parties was tantamount to granting them legislative powers which is against constitutional principles separating powers among different branches of government.