In the 1946 case United States Department of Agriculture, Emergency Crop and Feed Loans v. Remund, Administrator, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The issue at hand was whether or not a lien held by USDA on crops grown with its loans could be enforced against an administrator who had sold those crops without knowledge of the lien. The court found that under federal law, such liens are valid regardless if they were recorded according to state laws or not. Therefore, even though Remund did not have actual notice about this particular lien when he sold off these crops as part of his duties as an administrator for a deceased farmer's estate, he was still liable because constructive notice existed due to federal statutes creating these liens automatically upon loan disbursement from USDA.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of United States Department of Agriculture, Emergency Crop and Feed Loans v. Remund, Administrator (1946), it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a federal statute allowing crop loans to be prioritized over other debts in bankruptcy proceedings contradicted previous court rulings on similar matters. The dissenting justices believed this ruling gave undue preference to government claims above those of private creditors, which they saw as an unfair interpretation of bankruptcy laws. They also expressed concern about potential abuses by government agencies who might use such preferential treatment to unfairly secure repayment at the expense of other creditors. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view that Congress had clearly intended for these types of loans to receive special treatment under bankruptcy law.