In Blamberg Brothers v. United States, the Supreme Court considered whether a search warrant could be issued for an entire building when only one part of it was suspected to contain illegal goods. The case arose after federal agents seized 120 cases of whiskey from the basement and first floor of a four-story building owned by Blamberg Brothers during Prohibition. The company argued that the seizure was unlawful because the search warrant did not specify which parts of their property were to be searched. However, in its decision, the Supreme Court upheld lower court rulings that found no Fourth Amendment violation had occurred as there was probable cause to believe that illicit alcohol might be found anywhere within such premises due to its nature and size.

In the dissenting opinion for Blamberg Brothers v. United States, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Section 4 of the Lever Act. He argued that this section was designed to prevent profiteering and price manipulation during a time of war, not to regulate all business transactions in peacetime. The justice believed that applying it as such would give an unwarranted extension to its scope and purpose beyond what Congress intended when they passed it. Furthermore, he contended that if every violation of government regulations could be prosecuted under criminal law without clear legislative intent indicating so, then many ordinary citizens could unknowingly find themselves facing criminal charges for minor infractions or misunderstandings about complex rules and regulations. This view held by Justice McReynolds emphasized his concern over potential governmental overreach into private affairs.