In the 1892 case United States ex rel. Trask v. Wanamaker, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over patent rights for an invention related to mail bags used by the Post Office Department. The inventor, Trask, had assigned his patent rights to another party who subsequently sold them to a third party without notifying him or obtaining his consent. When this third party attempted to enforce these rights against the government (specifically against John Wanamaker in his capacity as Postmaster General), Trask intervened and sought relief from the court on grounds that he was not properly informed about this transaction and thus it should be deemed invalid. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Trask stating that under federal law governing patents at that time, any assignment of patent rights required written acknowledgment from all parties involved including inventors like himself who still held residual interests in their inventions even after assigning them away initially.

In the dissenting opinion for United States ex rel. Trask v. Wanamaker, it was argued that the majority's decision to deny a writ of mandamus against Postmaster General John Wanamaker overstepped their jurisdiction and violated principles of separation of powers. The dissent contended that the Supreme Court did not have authority to interfere with executive branch decisions unless there was clear evidence of illegality or abuse of power, which they believed wasn't present in this case. They also expressed concern about setting a precedent where courts could intervene in administrative matters based on subjective judgments about what constituted "good cause." Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of postal laws and regulations related to postmasters' removals from office, arguing these were intended as internal guidelines rather than enforceable rules subject to judicial review.