In the 1897 case Fink v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning bankruptcy and debt collection. The appellant, Fink, was a debtor who had transferred his property to another party in order to avoid paying his creditors. This action violated an 1867 Bankruptcy Act that prohibited such transfers with intent to defraud creditors. However, when this case came before the court in 1895-96, there were no longer any penalties for violating this act because it had been repealed by Congress in 1878 without any saving clause for pending prosecutions or unsatisfied liabilities under it. The Supreme Court held that since there were no penalties at the time of trial for violations of this act due to its repeal without a saving clause (a provision allowing certain parts of law still be enforced after being repealed), Fink could not be prosecuted or penalized based on his actions taken while it was still active legislation. This decision reinforced principles regarding retroactive application of laws and highlighted how changes made by legislative bodies can impact ongoing legal proceedings.

In the dissenting opinion for Fink v. United States, it was argued that the majority's interpretation of the law in question was too broad and could potentially lead to abuses of power by government officials. The dissenting justices believed that a more narrow interpretation would better serve justice and protect individual rights. They also disagreed with how evidence had been handled during trial, arguing that certain pieces should not have been admitted due to their questionable relevance or reliability. Furthermore, they felt there were procedural errors made during trial which may have unfairly influenced its outcome. Overall, these justices held deep concerns about potential violations of due process and fair treatment under the law as a result of this ruling.