In the case of Lash's Products Company v. United States in 1928, the Supreme Court ruled on whether a tax imposed by Congress was constitutional. The company argued that this tax violated their Fifth Amendment rights because it was not equally applied to all businesses and thus constituted an unlawful taking of property without due process of law. However, the court disagreed with this argument, stating that Congress has broad powers to levy taxes as they see fit and such decisions are generally beyond judicial review unless there is clear evidence of abuse or discrimination. In this case, no such evidence existed so the court upheld the constitutionality of the tax.

In the dissenting opinion for Lash's Products Company v. United States, it was argued that the majority had erred in their interpretation of the law and its application to this case. The dissent believed that Lash's Products Company should not be held liable for misbranding under the Food and Drugs Act because they did not intentionally deceive or mislead consumers with their product labeling. They contended that there was no evidence to suggest any intent to defraud on part of Lash’s company, which is a necessary component for conviction under said act. Furthermore, they disagreed with how broadly the majority interpreted "misbranded," arguing instead for a narrower definition more closely aligned with common understanding and legal precedent. In essence, while acknowledging some ambiguity in product labels, they asserted such ambiguities were insufficient grounds for criminal liability without clear proof of fraudulent intent.