In the Porter v. Lee case of 1945, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving price control regulations during World War II. The Price Administrator, Paul A. Porter, sought to enforce maximum price regulations against defendants who were operating a business in violation of these controls. The defendants argued that they had not been given an opportunity for a fair hearing before enforcement action was taken and claimed this violated their due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this argument and upheld that emergency wartime legislation allowed for immediate enforcement actions without prior hearings in order to maintain economic stability during war times.

In the dissenting opinion for Porter, Price Administrator v. Lee et al., Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision to uphold a rent control order was an overreach of judicial power and violated principles of federalism. He contended that it was not within the Court's purview to determine whether or not such orders were reasonable or necessary, as this responsibility fell under administrative agencies' discretion. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of ‘area’ in relation to price regulation and believed it should be defined more narrowly than what they had decided upon. Lastly, he expressed concern about potential harm caused by excessive governmental interference in private contractual relationships between landlords and tenants.