In the case of St. Joseph Stock Yards Co. v. United States et al., 1935, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a rate set by a public regulatory body could be challenged in court as unconstitutional without first being appealed to that same regulatory body for reconsideration. The St. Joseph Stock Yards Company argued that rates established by the Secretary of Agriculture were confiscatory and violated their Fifth Amendment rights against property seizure without due process or just compensation. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the United States, stating that while judicial review is necessary when constitutional questions are raised about administrative decisions, it does not mean those decisions must always be reviewed de novo (from scratch). Instead, courts should give "great weight" to factual findings made during administrative proceedings and only overturn them if they lack substantial evidence support. This decision affirmed the principle of deference to agency expertise in complex areas such as rate-setting where legislative bodies have delegated authority to specialized agencies.

In the dissenting opinion for St. Joseph Stock Yards Co. v. United States, Justice McReynolds argued that the court majority had overstepped its bounds by substituting their judgment for that of a legislative body (the Secretary of Agriculture). He contended that there was no evidence to suggest the rates set by the stockyard company were unreasonable or oppressive and thus, did not warrant interference from either Congress or courts. Furthermore, he maintained that it was inappropriate for such bodies to dictate business practices without clear proof of wrongdoing as this could potentially infrive upon property rights protected under due process clause in Fifth Amendment. In essence, his argument centered on upholding principles of judicial restraint and deference towards decisions made by administrative agencies unless they are clearly unjustified.