In the case of American Smelting and Refining Company v. United States, 1921, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government. The dispute arose over a contract between American Smelting and Refining Company (ASARCO) and the U.S. government regarding lead ore sales during World War I. ASARCO claimed that it was entitled to additional compensation based on an increase in market prices for lead after their agreement had been made but before delivery occurred under a "readjustment" clause within their contract with the Government. The court disagreed with ASARCO's interpretation of this clause, stating that it only applied if there were changes to costs associated directly with production or labor - not simply because market prices fluctuated due to external factors such as war conditions or speculative activities unrelated to actual production costs. Therefore, despite increased profits from higher selling prices at later dates by other companies who did not have fixed price contracts like ASARCO’s agreement with the Government; these circumstances did not entitle them to extra payments beyond what was stipulated in their original contractual terms.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of American Smelting and Refining Company v. United States, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tariff on lead bullion imported from Mexico contradicted previous court rulings and established principles of international law. The dissenting justices believed that because the lead ore had been smelted into bullion in Mexico, it should be considered a product of that country and not subject to U.S tariffs under existing trade agreements. They also pointed out inconsistencies in how different types of processed materials were being treated under U.S customs laws, with some being exempt from duties while others were not. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative impacts on international relations if other countries decided to retaliate by imposing similar tariffs on U.S goods.