The Florsheim Brothers Drygoods Company, Ltd. v. United States case in 1929 revolved around the issue of import duties on merchandise imported from foreign countries into the U.S. The Florsheim Brothers Drygoods Company had imported women's gloves made of sheep leather and claimed that they should be classified under paragraph 1536(b) of the Tariff Act of 1922, which would result in a lower duty rate than if they were classified under paragraph 1530(a). However, customs officials disagreed with this classification and imposed higher duties based on their interpretation that these goods fell under paragraph 1530(a). The company protested against this decision but was unsuccessful at both the Board of General Appraisers and Court of Customs Appeals levels. In its appeal to the Supreme Court, it argued that there was ambiguity in interpreting paragraphs 1536(b) and 1530(a), hence necessitating a ruling favoring them as per rules governing tariff legislation interpretations. However, after examining legislative history related to these provisions along with other relevant factors such as commercial designation practices for similar products at that time period etc., Supreme Court ruled against Florsheim Brothers' arguments stating no ambiguity existed here warranting any different interpretation than what customs authorities had already done.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Florsheim Brothers Drygoods Company, Ltd., v. United States argued that the majority's interpretation of Section 2 of the Clayton Act was incorrect. The dissent contended that this section should not be interpreted to mean that price discrimination is illegal only when it tends to create a monopoly or substantially lessen competition. Instead, they believed any form of price discrimination which affects commerce among states should be considered unlawful under this act. They also disagreed with the majority's view on what constitutes "substantially" lessening competition and creating a monopoly, arguing for a broader interpretation than what was applied by their counterparts in the ruling.