In the case of Stafford et al., Copartners, Doing Business as Stafford Brothers, et al. v. Wallace, Secretary of Agriculture, et al., 1921, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a provision in the United States Grain Standards Act violated due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. The provision allowed for an appeal from decisions made by licensed inspectors regarding grain standards but required that any such appeal be accompanied by a bond or cash deposit equal to twice the value of disputed grain. The plaintiffs argued this requirement was unconstitutional because it effectively denied them access to judicial review unless they could afford this potentially high cost upfront. However, after considering these arguments and reviewing relevant legal precedents and principles related to due process rights and administrative law procedures within federal agencies like Department of Agriculture (USDA), the court upheld constitutionality of said provision concluding that it did not violate Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause since there were other adequate remedies available even if appellants couldn't afford bond or deposit.

In the dissenting opinion for Stafford et al., Copartners, Doing Business as Stafford Brothers, et al. v. Wallace, Secretary of Agriculture, et al., Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Lever Act and its application to this case. He argued that Congress did not intend for such a broad interpretation when they passed it during World War I as an emergency measure to control food prices and prevent hoarding. In his view, applying it in peacetime to regulate normal business transactions was beyond its intended scope and violated constitutional principles of due process by depriving individuals of their property without just compensation or fair notice about what constitutes illegal behavior under this law. Furthermore, he contended that if Congress wanted to extend these wartime powers into peacetime or expand them beyond controlling food supplies during emergencies then they should do so explicitly through new legislation rather than relying on courts' expansive interpretations.