In the Linder v. United States case of 1924, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a doctor could not be federally prosecuted for prescribing small amounts of morphine to an addict for relief or mitigation of their condition. The court held that such prescriptions were within the bounds of professional medical treatment and did not constitute a violation under the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act, which was designed to regulate and tax production, importation, and distribution of opiates rather than direct medical practice. Dr. Charles Olin Linder had been convicted by lower courts for giving a patient three tablets containing one-sixth grain each in Spokane Washington; however, this conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court on appeal as it found no evidence suggesting misuse or deviation from accepted medical norms by Dr.Linder.

In the dissenting opinion for Linder v. United States, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Harrison Narcotic Act. He argued that Dr. Linder was not exempt from prosecution under this act simply because he was a licensed physician who prescribed narcotics to an addict for relief of withdrawal symptoms rather than cure or treatment of disease. According to him, such an action did not constitute "professional practice" as defined by law and thus fell outside its protection. Furthermore, he contended that Congress had intended to regulate all aspects of narcotic drugs' distribution through this legislation - including prescriptions by physicians - in order to combat drug addiction effectively; therefore, any exceptions should be explicitly stated within the statute itself instead of being inferred by courts based on their own interpretations or policy considerations.