In the 1893 Supreme Court case Lees v. United States, the court examined whether a federal law that imposed taxes on distilled spirits was applicable to whiskey produced in Scotland and imported into America. The plaintiff, Lees, argued that he should not be required to pay these taxes because his product was made outside of U.S jurisdiction. However, the government contended that since the liquor was being sold within its borders it should be subject to taxation. The Supreme Court sided with the government ruling that regardless of where a product is manufactured if it's sold within U.S territory then it falls under American tax laws. This decision reinforced Congress' power to levy excise taxes on foreign goods entering domestic markets.

In the dissenting opinion for Lees v. United States, it was argued that the defendant's conviction should be overturned due to a lack of evidence proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant issues with how the trial was conducted, including questionable jury instructions and an overreliance on circumstantial evidence. They also expressed concerns about potential violations of the defendant's constitutional rights during his arrest and subsequent interrogation by law enforcement officials. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority’s interpretation of relevant laws and legal precedents in this case, arguing instead for a more stringent standard when determining whether or not someone has committed a crime based solely on indirect proof. In their view, upholding such convictions could set dangerous precedent for future cases where defendants might be found guilty despite insufficient or unreliable evidence against them.