In the United States Grain Corporation v. Phillips case of 1922, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over grain contracts. The U.S. Grain Corporation had been established during World War I to stabilize domestic grain prices and ensure adequate supplies for military needs. After the war ended, it continued operations but was eventually dissolved in 1920 by an act of Congress which also provided that any remaining disputes involving its contracts would be settled under federal law. Phillips sued the corporation for breach of contract after it failed to deliver on promised wheat shipments due to post-war market disruptions and price fluctuations. The lower courts ruled in favor of Phillips, awarding damages based on local state laws rather than federal law. The Supreme Court reversed these decisions, ruling that since Congress had explicitly stated that disputes should be resolved under federal law when dissolving the corporation, this provision took precedence over state laws regarding contract breaches and damage awards. This decision reinforced principles about Congressional power over interstate commerce as well as highlighting issues related to government intervention in markets during times of national emergency or public need.

In the dissenting opinion for United States Grain Corporation v. Phillips, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Lever Act and its application to this case. He argued that Congress did not intend to give broad powers to a government corporation like U.S. Grain Corporation in terms of price-fixing or monopolistic control over wheat sales during World War I under this act. Instead, he believed that such powers were only meant for President Wilson as part of his war efforts and should have ended when hostilities ceased. Furthermore, he contended that even if such powers existed, they could not be used arbitrarily or unfairly against individuals like Phillips without due process of law which includes fair notice about potential penalties for non-compliance with regulations set by U.S.G.C., an opportunity to challenge them before impartial tribunals and reasonable limits on their severity based on actual harm caused rather than mere speculation or fear about possible future damages.