The United States Supreme Court case, UNITED STATES et al. v. FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY CO. et al., 1972, revolved around the issue of whether or not a full evidentiary hearing was necessary before the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) could establish rate increases for railroads under its jurisdiction. The Florida East Coast Railway Co., along with other railway companies, argued that they were entitled to such hearings as part of their due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. However, in a unanimous decision led by Justice Thurgood Marshall, the court ruled against this argument stating that an agency like ICC is not required to hold an oral evidentiary hearing when establishing rates; written proceedings would suffice unless there are substantial issues regarding material facts which cannot be resolved without cross-examination and credibility evaluations.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Florida East Coast Railway Co., 1972 case, argued that the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) should have held oral hearings before setting maximum rates for railroad companies. The dissenters believed that this was a requirement under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). They contended that written submissions were not sufficient to meet due process requirements and did not allow for adequate exploration of complex issues or effective cross-examination of witnesses. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "on-the-record" as used in APA, arguing it implied an oral hearing rather than just written evidence submission. In their view, denying such hearings undermined fairness and transparency in administrative proceedings.