In the case of United States et al. v. L.A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc., 1952, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the U.S government and against L.A Tucker Truck Lines, a trucking company that had been operating without an Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) certificate for several years. The ICC had denied Tucker's application for a certificate on grounds that it was not "fit, willing and able" to provide service as required by law due to its history of unauthorized operations. However, this decision was overturned by lower courts which held that the ICC could not use past illegal activities as evidence against granting future certificates. The Supreme Court reversed these decisions stating that administrative agencies like ICC have broad discretion in making determinations within their field of expertise and should be allowed to consider all relevant factors including past conduct when deciding whether or not to grant licenses or permits such as an interstate commerce certificate.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. L.A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc., Justice Frankfurter argued that the Court had overstepped its bounds by intervening in a matter of administrative procedure. He contended that it was not within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to dictate how an agency like Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) should conduct its hearings or what evidence it should consider, as long as due process is observed. The majority's decision to nullify ICC’s order because one examiner who participated in hearing did not participate in decision-making seemed unwarranted interference with internal procedures of administrative agencies to him. Furthermore, he pointed out that there was no indication whatsoever that this procedural irregularity resulted in any prejudice against Tucker Truck Lines; hence there was no violation of 'fundamental fairness'. In essence, his argument revolved around maintaining respect for separation of powers and allowing administrative bodies discretion over their own processes unless they violate constitutional rights or legal mandates.