The Ex Parte National Enameling and Stamping Company case in 1905 involved the issue of whether a corporation could be held criminally liable. The National Enameling and Stamping Company was charged with maintaining a nuisance that resulted in the death of an employee due to unsafe working conditions. However, they argued that as a corporation, it couldn't be held criminally responsible for such charges because criminal intent cannot be attributed to corporations. The U.S Supreme Court rejected this argument stating that corporations can indeed face criminal liability if their actions result in harm or injury to others. This ruling set an important precedent for corporate responsibility under law.

In the dissenting opinion for Ex Parte National Enameling and Stamping Company, it was argued that the court overstepped its jurisdiction by issuing a writ of mandamus to compel action from a lower court. The dissenting justices believed that this case should have been handled through an appeal process rather than direct intervention by the Supreme Court. They contended that there were no extraordinary circumstances warranting such an intervention, as required under U.S law for issuance of a writ of mandamus. Furthermore, they expressed concern about setting a precedent where parties could bypass regular appellate procedures in favor of seeking relief directly from the Supreme Court via mandamus petitions. This would undermine established legal processes and potentially overload the Supreme Court with cases better suited to lower courts.