In the case of M. E. Blatt Co. v. United States in 1938, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning customs duties and importation laws. The M.E Blatt Company imported dolls from Japan that were dressed in clothing made in China, arguing that they should only be charged for importing dolls rather than both dolls and doll clothes separately which would result in higher tariffs under U.S law at the time. However, the government argued that since these items were not necessarily sold together (as one could buy a doll without buying its clothes), they constituted separate articles subject to individual duty charges. The court sided with the government's interpretation of importation laws and held that each item was indeed distinct for tariff purposes despite being shipped together as an ensemble; thus upholding their right to impose separate duties on both dolls and their accompanying apparel.

In the dissenting opinion for M. E. Blatt Co. v. United States, it was argued that the majority's interpretation of Section 77B of the Bankruptcy Act was incorrect and overly broad in its application to this case. The dissent contended that Congress intended for Section 77B to apply only when a corporation is insolvent or unable to meet its debts as they mature, not merely because it has defaulted on some obligations while remaining solvent overall - which was believed to be the situation with M.E Blatt Co.. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view that a single default could trigger reorganization under section 77B even if there were no immediate danger of insolvency or inability to pay other debts as they come due.