In the case of Secretary of Agriculture v. United States et al., 1953, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a regulation issued by the Secretary of Agriculture under authority granted by Congress could be invalidated because it did not follow procedures outlined in another statute - specifically, if it failed to comply with requirements for public notice and hearings as stipulated in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court ruled that when two statutes are capable of co-existence, they should be regarded as effective unless there is clear congressional intent stating otherwise. In this case, since both APA and Marketing Agreement Acts can exist together without conflict or contradiction, non-compliance with one does not invalidate actions taken under authority from another act. Therefore, even though some procedural steps were skipped while issuing regulations under Marketing Agreement Acts authorized by Congress itself; these regulations cannot be deemed invalid just on grounds that they didn't adhere to APA's procedural requirements.

In the dissenting opinion for Secretary of Agriculture v. United States et al., Justice Jackson disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a regulation issued by the Secretary of Agriculture under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act. He argued that this ruling gave too much legislative power to an executive agency, which he believed was unconstitutional and violated separation of powers principles. Jackson contended that Congress had unconstitutionally delegated its law-making authority to the Secretary, as it failed to provide any clear policy or standard in relation to milk marketing orders. He further stated that such delegation could lead towards arbitrary government action and undermine democratic processes, since these regulations were not subject directly or indirectly to voter control.