In the United States v. Morgan et al., 1938, the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving price fixing in the livestock industry. The Secretary of Agriculture had set maximum rates for commission men at stockyards under authority granted by Congress through the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. However, these rates were challenged by various parties involved in livestock marketing who claimed that they were not given an adequate opportunity to cross-examine witnesses during hearings held to determine these rates. The Supreme Court sided with this argument, ruling that due process was violated because those affected did not have sufficient opportunity to challenge evidence used against them. This decision underscored the importance of procedural fairness in administrative proceedings.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Morgan, Justice McReynolds expressed concern over the majority's decision to uphold a federal order setting maximum rates for stockyard services. He argued that this was an unconstitutional interference with private business and violated due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. McReynolds believed that Congress had no authority to regulate these rates as they were not directly related to interstate commerce but rather constituted a local activity within individual states' jurisdiction. Furthermore, he criticized the lack of judicial review in determining whether these rates were fair and reasonable, asserting it undermined principles of separation of powers by allowing administrative agencies too much discretion without sufficient oversight from courts. In his view, such unchecked power could lead to arbitrary or discriminatory actions detrimental to businesses affected by these regulations.