In Duesenberg Motors Corporation v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the U.S. government regarding a dispute over patent rights for certain automobile parts. The case arose when Duesenberg Motors Corporation claimed that they held exclusive patents to specific auto components and accused the U.S government of infringing on these patents during World War I by manufacturing military vehicles with similar parts without their permission or compensation. However, under an act passed by Congress in 1917 (the Naval Appropriation Act), it was deemed legal for the government to produce patented inventions necessary for war efforts without obtaining consent from patent holders if it was "for public use". The court upheld this law and dismissed Duesenberg's claim stating that national security took precedence over individual property rights during times of war.

In the dissenting opinion for Duesenberg Motors Corporation v. United States, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Volstead Act and its application to industrial alcohol. He argued that Congress did not intend to prohibit all forms of alcohol but only those intended for beverage purposes. Therefore, he believed that it was incorrect to apply penalties meant for intoxicating liquors on substances like industrial alcohols which were not intended or suitable as beverages due to their harmful effects if consumed. Furthermore, he contended that such a broad interpretation could potentially criminalize many innocent activities involving non-beverage alcohols and create unnecessary confusion in law enforcement efforts against actual violations related to alcoholic beverages.