In the 1949 case Railway Labor Executives' Association v. United States et al., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a federal district court had jurisdiction to review an order by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). The ICC's order allowed a railroad company under reorganization to abandon unprofitable lines without first obtaining approval from its creditors and stockholders, as required by Section 77 of the Bankruptcy Act. The Railway Labor Executives' Association argued this was unlawful, asserting that it violated both statutory requirements and due process rights of employees who would lose their jobs because of line closures. However, in a unanimous decision delivered by Justice Harold Hitz Burton, the Supreme Court held that while courts could review such orders for legality and constitutionality, they could not substitute their judgment for that of administrative agencies on matters within those agencies’ expertise or discretion.

In the dissenting opinion for Railway Labor Executives' Association v. United States et al., Justice Douglas argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of administrative law. He contended that the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had overstepped its bounds by ordering railroads to install automatic train control devices without first holding hearings or making findings as required by law. He also disagreed with the majority's view that this case involved an exception to these requirements, arguing instead that such exceptions should be narrowly construed and not applied in cases where they would undermine basic procedural safeguards. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuses of power if agencies like ICC were allowed to issue orders without following proper procedures.