The Renegotiation Board v. Bannercraft Clothing Co., Inc. case in 1973 revolved around the issue of whether or not the Renegotiation Act violated due process by allowing a government agency to unilaterally determine excessive profits on war contracts and order their repayment without judicial review. The Supreme Court ruled that it did not violate due process, as there were sufficient safeguards in place to prevent arbitrary action by the board, including an opportunity for contractors to present evidence and arguments before any final determination was made. Furthermore, if dissatisfied with the board's decision, contractors could seek de novo review (a new hearing) from a federal court where all issues would be open for consideration.

In the dissenting opinion for Renegotiation Board v. Bannercraft Clothing Co., Inc., Justice Rehnquist argued that the majority's decision to allow judicial review of administrative decisions was misguided and could potentially undermine the authority of such agencies. He contended that Congress had explicitly intended to preclude judicial review in this context, as evidenced by their creation of a special appeals process within the agency itself. Furthermore, he expressed concern about courts becoming overburdened with cases challenging administrative rulings if they were allowed to intervene at any stage in proceedings before an agency has made its final determination. In his view, allowing premature intervention would disrupt agency processes and delay resolution of disputes.