In the case of Toilet Goods Association, Inc., et al. v. Gardner, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, et al., 1966, the Supreme Court ruled on whether a regulation by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was constitutional. The FDA had issued a rule allowing it to suspend certification services for any company that refused to allow inspections of its facilities at any time without prior notice. The Toilet Goods Association argued this violated their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures as well as their Fifth Amendment due process rights because there were no guidelines for when an inspection could occur or what would be inspected. The Supreme Court held that since the suspension only applied to future certifications rather than existing ones and did not immediately affect companies' ability to do business; therefore it wasn't ripe for judicial review until enforcement action was taken under it which caused actual harm. This decision established important precedent regarding "ripeness" doctrine in administrative law - courts generally will not consider challenges to regulations until they are enforced in a way causing concrete injury.

In the dissenting opinion for Toilet Goods Association, Inc. v. Gardner, Justice Black argued that the Court should have decided on the constitutionality of a regulation by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which allowed its inspectors to access factories at any time without a warrant or hearing. He believed that this was an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of Fourth Amendment rights. The majority had ruled against deciding on this issue as it was not yet ripe for review since no actual inspections under these regulations had occurred yet; however, Justice Black disagreed with their avoidance of ruling on such an important constitutional question when it was clearly presented before them.