In the case of Great Western Serum Company v. United States, 1920, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a tax imposed on serum and virus products used in veterinary medicine was constitutional. The Great Western Serum Company argued that this tax violated their Fifth Amendment rights by depriving them of property without due process of law. They also contended that it infringed upon their Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying them equal protection under the law because similar taxes were not levied on human medicines. The court ruled against Great Western Serum Company, upholding the constitutionality of the tax. It found no violation of either amendment as there was no arbitrary or unreasonable classification in taxing animal serums while exempting those for humans; differentiating between these two classes had a reasonable basis since they served distinct purposes and markets.

In the dissenting opinion for Great Western Serum Company v. United States, it was argued that the majority's interpretation of the law was too broad and could potentially lead to unjust outcomes. The justice disagreed with the majority's view that a company can be held liable for misbranding even when they were unaware of any wrongdoing. He contended that this interpretation would essentially make companies strictly liable for all actions, regardless of their knowledge or intent. This, he believed, went against traditional principles of criminal law which typically require some level of mens rea (guilty mind) or culpability on part of the defendant to establish liability. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuse by government officials who might use such an expansive reading to unfairly target businesses without sufficient cause.