The U.S. Supreme Court case Renegotiation Board v. Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp., 1974, revolved around the issue of whether or not a contractor could challenge a decision by the Renegotiation Board in court before exhausting all administrative remedies. The board had determined that Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation made excessive profits on government contracts during World War II and demanded repayment. However, Grumman contested this finding in court without first appealing to an appeals board within the agency as required by law (the "exhaustion doctrine"). The Supreme Court ruled against Grumman, stating that contractors must exhaust all administrative remedies before seeking judicial review unless they can demonstrate irreparable harm would result from waiting for those processes to play out.

In the dissenting opinion for Renegotiation Board v. Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp., it was argued that the majority's decision to allow a renegotiation board to make final decisions on excess profits without judicial review violated due process rights. The dissenters believed this gave too much power to an administrative agency, undermining the constitutional separation of powers by allowing an executive body to act as judge and jury in its own cases. They also raised concerns about potential bias within such agencies, which could lead them to unfairly favor government interests over those of private companies. Furthermore, they disputed the majority's claim that there were sufficient safeguards against abuse of power in place, arguing these were inadequate and did not provide enough protection for businesses subjected to potentially arbitrary rulings by these boards.