In the case of United States ex rel. The International Contracting Company v. Lamont, 1894, the Supreme Court examined a dispute over a contract for construction work on the U.S. Capitol building in Washington D.C., awarded to The International Contracting Company by Secretary of War Daniel S. Lamont. After completion of part of the project, payment was withheld due to alleged non-compliance with certain contractual terms regarding use of American materials and laborers only. The company sought relief through a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court to compel payment by arguing that they had complied with all conditions or that any violations were waived by government officials overseeing their work. However, Justice Gray delivered an unanimous opinion denying this request stating that such discretionary decisions made under executive authority could not be reviewed or controlled via judicial mandate unless there was clear legal right violated which wasn't demonstrated here. This ruling reinforced separation between judiciary and executive branches while also emphasizing importance adhering strictly to public contract stipulations especially when involving taxpayer funds.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States ex rel. The International Contracting Company v. Lamont argued that the Secretary of War did not have the authority to make final decisions on contractual disputes without judicial review. This view held that while Congress had given certain powers to administrative officials, it did not intend for these officials to act as judges in their own cases or controversies arising from contracts they administered. It was contended that such a practice would be contrary to principles of justice and fairness, undermining confidence in public contracting processes by allowing potential bias and self-interest into decision-making procedures. Furthermore, this perspective maintained that any interpretation suggesting Congress intended for administrative decisions on contract disputes to be final and unreviewable should be rejected as unconstitutional because it violates due process rights under the Fifth Amendment.