In the 1920 case of Gilpin, a minor, etc. v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether or not a minor could be held liable for income tax on dividends received from stock owned by them but controlled by their parents. The plaintiff argued that since they were minors and did not have control over their assets or income, they should not be taxed on it. However, the court ruled against this argument stating that while minors may lack legal capacity to manage their property independently due to age restrictions under state law; federal law does not exempt them from taxation based on these grounds. Therefore, even though the child's parent managed his stocks and collected dividends on his behalf as custodian until he reached majority age; those earnings are still considered taxable income attributable to him under federal tax laws.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Gilpin, a minor, etc. v. United States argued that the government had overstepped its bounds by infringing upon individual rights and liberties. The justice believed that it was not within the purview of federal authority to regulate or prohibit certain types of speech or expression, even if they were deemed harmful or offensive by some individuals or groups. They contended that such actions constituted an infringement on First Amendment rights and could set a dangerous precedent for future cases involving freedom of speech issues. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential abuses of power and warned against allowing governmental entities too much discretion in determining what constitutes acceptable forms of expression.