In the 1923 case of Klebe et al., Copartners, Trading as L. Klebe & Company v. United States, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over customs duties on imported goods. The plaintiffs were importers who had brought in merchandise from Germany and argued that they should be charged lower duty rates based on a treaty between the US and Germany signed in 1828. However, this treaty was abrogated by Congress during World War I due to hostilities with Germany. The main issue before the court was whether or not Congress had exceeded its constitutional authority when it terminated the treaty without obtaining approval from two-thirds of Senate members - which is usually required for ratifying treaties under Article II Section 2 of Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled against Klebe & Co., stating that while Senate consent is necessary for making treaties, there's no explicit requirement in Constitution about how these agreements can be ended. Therefore, Congress acted within its powers when it unilaterally nullified the trade agreement during wartime conditions.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Klebe et al., Copartners, Trading as L. Klebe & Company v. United States, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Section 25(a) of Title II in The Prohibition Act. He argued that this section should not be interpreted to include all liquors capable of being used for beverage purposes but rather only those specifically intended for such use by their manufacturer or seller. According to him, if Congress had intended to prohibit all alcohol regardless of its purpose, it would have done so explicitly in the law’s text instead of using ambiguous language open to interpretation. Therefore, he believed that a substance containing alcohol could still be legally sold under certain circumstances even during prohibition times if it was not meant or marketed as a drinkable liquor.