The Kinnane v. Detroit Creamery Company case in 1920 revolved around the interpretation of the Lever Act, a federal law passed during World War I to prevent price gouging and profiteering. The United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, Kinnane, brought charges against Detroit Creamery Company and others for selling sugar at prices above those set by U.S. Food Administration under this act. However, defendants argued that they had purchased their sugar stock before these price controls were put into place and should not be subject to them retrospectively. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendants stating that while Congress did have power to regulate commerce during wartime including setting maximum prices on commodities like sugar; it could not apply such regulations retroactively unless explicitly stated so in legislation which was not done here with respect to Lever Act's provisions regarding pricing controls on foodstuffs like sugar.

In the dissenting opinion for Kinnane v. Detroit Creamery Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against an order of prohibition issued by the Food Administration during World War I was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that this case should have been viewed in light of wartime necessity and not through peacetime legal standards. They contended that Congress had granted broad powers to the President under war conditions, which included controlling food distribution to ensure adequate supplies for both civilian and military needs. Therefore, they felt that any orders from his designated officials were legally binding unless explicitly overruled by him or Congress itself. By disregarding these considerations, they claimed that the majority undermined executive authority during times of national crisis and set a dangerous precedent for future conflicts.