In Central Magazine Sales, Ltd. v. United States (1967), the Supreme Court dealt with a case involving the interpretation of tax laws related to periodicals and their distribution. The petitioner, Central Magazine Sales, was a wholesale distributor of magazines who argued that it should not be subject to federal excise taxes on its sales because they were "local" in nature as defined by Section 4231(2) of the Internal Revenue Code. However, both lower courts ruled against them stating that these transactions did not qualify for exemption from taxation under this section. The Supreme Court affirmed these decisions unanimously without opinion but with one justice dissenting without opinion too. It held that even though some aspects of Central's operations might have been local in character such as delivery within same state or city; however, since they involved interstate commerce i.e., purchasing magazines from out-of-state publishers and selling them to retailers across different states - they could not be considered purely local activities exempted from federal excise taxes according to existing law.

In the dissenting opinion for Central Magazine Sales, Ltd. v. United States, the justice argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and infringed upon First Amendment rights. The justice contended that obscenity should not be determined by whether an average person would find a work to appeal to prurient interest but rather if it had any redeeming social value or importance. He believed this standard was more in line with protecting freedom of speech and press as intended by the Constitution. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on community standards in determining obscenity because they can vary greatly across different regions and cultures within America which could lead to arbitrary enforcement of laws based on subjective morality judgments rather than objective legal principles.