In the 1932 case United States ex rel. Greathouse et al. v. Dern, Secretary of War, et al., the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving military pensions and benefits for veterans who served in World War I. The petitioners were former soldiers who had been denied disability benefits by the Veterans' Bureau (now known as the Department of Veterans Affairs). They argued that they were entitled to these benefits under federal law and sought an injunction against George H. Dern, then-Secretary of War, to prevent him from enforcing regulations that would deny them their claimed entitlements. The Supreme Court held that it did not have jurisdiction over this matter because Congress had provided an adequate remedy through administrative procedures within the Veterans' Bureau itself - specifically through appeals up to its director - which must be exhausted before resorting to court action. This decision reinforced principles regarding separation of powers between branches of government and judicial review's limitations when administrative remedies are available.

In the dissenting opinion for United States ex rel. Greathouse et al. v. Dern, Secretary of War, et al., Justice McReynolds argued that the majority's decision to deny relief was based on an erroneous interpretation of law and facts. He believed that the petitioners were entitled to their claims as they had fulfilled their contractual obligations with good faith and diligence but were unjustly denied payment by government officials who misinterpreted or disregarded existing laws governing such contracts. The justice further criticized his colleagues' reliance on technicalities in dismissing the case instead of addressing its merits - a move he saw as undermining principles of fairness and equity inherent in contract law.