The Court first addressed the plaintiff's argument that the enforcement of the award against him unconstitutionally deprived him of property without due process of law, therefore violating the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Court held that the statute did not violate the due process clause because the administrative procedure provided notice, an opportunity to be heard, findings based on record evidence, and judicial review of all questions of law.

"[1] The Court makes a distinction between "cases of private right and those which arise between the Government and persons subject to its authority in connection with the performance of the constitutional functions of the executive or legislative departments."

"[page needed] The Court then determined that Benson's case did not fall within the "public right" categories, because it concerned "the liability of one individual to another under the law as defined."

Likewise, Congress had not exceeded its constitutional authority in establishing an administrative agency to determine the "circumstances, nature, extent and consequences of the injuries".