In Yakus v. United States (1943), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a law that allowed administrative agencies to create criminal offenses and adjudicate guilt. The case involved two individuals, Mr. and Mrs. Yakus, who were convicted for selling meat at prices higher than those established by the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 during World War II - an act aimed at controlling inflation in wartime economy by setting price ceilings on commodities like food and housing rentals. The defendants argued that their conviction was unconstitutional because it violated their right to due process under the Fifth Amendment as they had no opportunity for judicial review before being penalized; essentially arguing against Congress's delegation of legislative power to executive agencies without proper checks or balances. However, the court ruled in favor of government stating that Congress has broad powers especially during times of war or national emergency which includes delegating authority to administrative bodies such as Office Of Price Administration here, so long as there are adequate standards guiding this delegated authority along with provision for judicial review even if after penalties have been imposed.

In the dissenting opinion for Yakus v. United States, Justice Rutledge argued that the delegation of legislative power to an administrative agency was unconstitutional. He believed that Congress had abdicated its responsibility by allowing the Price Administrator to determine criminal liability without judicial review before enforcement. This, he claimed, violated due process rights and upset the balance of powers between branches of government as outlined in the Constitution. Furthermore, he contended that it was unfair for individuals to be punished under regulations they could not challenge until after being accused or convicted of violating them; this denied defendants a fair opportunity to contest their guilt or innocence based on those rules' validity.