In the case of United States ex rel. Lowe v. Fisher, Secretary of the Interior in 1911, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a decision by the Secretary of Interior regarding land disputes could be reviewed by courts. The dispute arose when two parties claimed ownership over certain lands under different acts - one party under Timber and Stone Act and another under Desert Land Act. The Secretary decided in favor of claimant who filed under Desert Land Act which led to this appeal at Supreme Court by aggrieved party (Lowe). In its ruling, the court held that decisions made by administrative agencies like Department of Interior are not subject to judicial review unless there is an allegation or proof showing fraud or mistake on part of agency officials while making such decisions. This principle established that courts generally defer to expertise and judgment calls made within executive branch departments.

In the dissenting opinion for United States ex rel. Lowe v. Fisher, Justice Holmes argued that the Secretary of Interior's decision to cancel a land patent should not be subject to judicial review unless there was evidence of fraud or mistake in its issuance. He believed that once a patent had been issued by the government, it became final and conclusive, barring any claims against it except on grounds of fraudulent acquisition or error in issuance. The majority ruling allowed for cancellation based on an administrative determination that conditions precedent to issuing the patent were not fulfilled - something Holmes saw as undermining property rights secured by patents and opening them up to uncertainty and instability due to potential subsequent administrative reviews.