The case of Tagg Bros. & Moorhead et al. v. United States et al., 1929, revolved around the question of whether or not the business conducted by a livestock commission company at public stockyards was subject to regulation by the Secretary of Agriculture under the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921. The plaintiffs argued that such regulation would violate their rights under the Fifth Amendment as it would constitute an unlawful delegation of legislative power and deprive them of property without due process law. However, in its decision, Supreme Court held that Congress had not unlawfully delegated its legislative powers to regulate commerce among states through this act; instead it provided standards for administrative action which were adequate for safeguarding against arbitrary exertion thereof. Furthermore, court ruled that since these businesses are affected with a public interest they can be regulated within constitutional limits without violating due process clause. Thus, Supreme Court upheld constitutionality of Packers and Stockyards Act's provisions allowing Secretary’s regulations over rates charged by market agencies operating at public stockyard markets ensuring fair trade practices in livestock marketing industry.

In the dissenting opinion for TAGG BROS. & MOORHEAD et al. v. UNITED STATES et al., Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to uphold federal regulation of livestock commission companies under the Packers and Stockyards Act was an overreach of congressional power, as it extended beyond interstate commerce into areas traditionally regulated by states. He contended that this interpretation could potentially lead to unlimited federal control over all aspects of business, including those with only a remote or indirect connection to interstate commerce. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential violations of due process rights if businesses were subjected to arbitrary regulations without judicial review or protection against unjust penalties.