In United States v. Joseph Nourse, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal statute that authorized the Secretary of Treasury to appoint an auditor for public accounts violated Article II of the Constitution. The defendant argued that it did because it gave executive power to someone other than those appointed by and with advice and consent from Congress. The Court disagreed, holding that while Congress could not delegate its legislative powers, this particular appointment was within their authority as they had already established laws governing how public money should be handled and monitored; thus allowing them to assign someone else with specific duties related thereto without infringing on any constitutional provisions. Ultimately, the court found in favor of the United States and upheld its right to appoint an auditor for public accounts under existing law.

In United States v. Joseph Nourse, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal statute that required certain officers of the government to give security bonds for their faithful performance of duties applied to an officer who had been appointed before the passage of said statute. The majority opinion held that it did not apply because such retroactive application would be unconstitutional and unjust. However, Justice McLean dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that Congress has authority over all matters relating to its own organization and thus could impose conditions upon those already in office; secondly, he maintained that even if Congress lacked such power then there was no injustice in applying the law retrospectively as long as it provided reasonable notice prior to taking effect. Ultimately Justice McLean concluded by stating his belief that "the act should have received a more liberal construction."