In the case of Pothier v. Rodman, United States Marshal, et al., 1922, Aram J. Pothier was a Republican candidate for governor in Rhode Island who won by a narrow margin against his Democratic opponent. However, due to allegations of voter fraud and irregularities during the election process, federal officials intervened and seized ballot boxes from several precincts for investigation purposes under orders from President Woodrow Wilson's administration. Pothier filed suit against U.S. Marshal William H.H. Rodman and other federal officials claiming that they had no legal authority to interfere with state elections or seize ballots as it violated states' rights under the Constitution; he sought an injunction preventing them from further interfering with the electoral process. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Rodman stating that while states have primary control over their own elections according to Article I Section IV of the Constitution (the Elections Clause), Congress has ultimate supervisory power over these processes if there are suspicions or evidence suggesting corruption or misconduct which could affect outcomes at national level - thus validating actions taken by federal authorities in this instance.

The dissenting opinion in the Pothier v. Rodman case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a federal law prohibiting alcohol transportation during Prohibition was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that this law infringed upon states' rights, as it allowed federal authorities to interfere with state and local laws regarding alcohol consumption and distribution. They contended that such interference violated the Tenth Amendment of the U.S Constitution, which reserves powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution for individual states or people. Furthermore, they disagreed with how broadly "interstate commerce" was interpreted in this context, arguing it could potentially lead to an overreach of federal power into areas traditionally regulated by states.