In the 1934 case of McCrea v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving federal income tax law. The plaintiff, McCrea, had received dividends from stock in foreign corporations and argued that these should not be included as gross income for U.S. taxation purposes because they were already taxed by their respective countries under applicable treaties with the U.S., thereby constituting double taxation. However, the court disagreed with this argument and held that such dividends are indeed subject to American taxes regardless of whether or not they have been previously taxed abroad according to treaty provisions between those nations and America. This decision effectively established that domestic laws take precedence over international agreements when it comes to determining taxable income within U.S borders.

In the dissenting opinion for McCrea v. United States, Justice McReynolds argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of law and an unwarranted intrusion into state affairs. He contended that there was no federal jurisdiction in this case as it involved purely local matters - specifically, a dispute over land titles in Florida. According to him, such issues should be resolved by state courts according to state laws rather than being taken up by federal authorities under maritime law or any other pretext. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's interpretation of relevant statutes and treaties as overly broad and inconsistent with their original intent or historical context. In his view, these legal instruments did not grant the U.S government any authority to interfere with private property rights on submerged lands within individual states' boundaries unless explicitly stated otherwise.