In the 1912 case of Plumley v. United States, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving copyright law and importation rights. The defendant, an importer named Plumley, had imported certain articles that were copyrighted in England but not in America. He was charged with violating section 4952 of the Revised Statutes which prohibited importing pictures or photographs bearing a title or description to which one does not have exclusive right of copying within the US. The court held that this statute did not apply to works copyrighted abroad only and thus could be legally imported into America without infringing upon any domestic copyrights. Therefore, it found in favor of Plumley as he had no obligation under American law to respect foreign copyrights if they weren't also registered domestically.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Plumley v. United States argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction for selling adulterated food products was incorrect because it relied on an overly broad interpretation of federal law. The dissent contended that while Congress had indeed passed laws regulating the sale and distribution of food, these laws were not intended to apply to every possible circumstance where food might be sold or distributed. Instead, they were meant only as safeguards against widespread public health dangers posed by large-scale commercial operations. In this particular case, involving a small local business owner who had unknowingly sold misbranded goods, applying such stringent standards seemed both unfair and contrary to legislative intent. Furthermore, the dissent pointed out that there was no evidence presented at trial showing any actual harm caused by the defendant’s actions - either physical harm from consuming his products or economic harm from being deceived about their nature – which should have been necessary elements for proving guilt under federal law.