In the case of Pottstown Iron Company v. United States, 1930, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the U.S government. The dispute arose when Pottstown Iron Company claimed that they were overcharged by a federal tax imposed on anthracite coal during World War I under the Lever Act (1917). This act was designed to prevent price gouging and profiteering during times of war. The company argued that this tax violated their Fifth Amendment rights as it constituted an unlawful taking without just compensation. However, the court held that Congress had broad powers to regulate commerce and taxation during wartime for public benefit and national security purposes. Therefore, such taxes did not constitute a violation of constitutional rights or amount to confiscation but rather served as valid regulatory measures within Congressional power.

In the dissenting opinion for Pottstown Iron Company v. United States, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tariff on iron products was incorrect. He contended that the Tariff Act of 1922 did not intend to impose duties on articles manufactured from iron or steel and coated with tin, as in this case. Instead, he believed it aimed at raw materials like pig iron and scrap metal only. Therefore, according to him, such finished goods should be exempted from tariffs under this act because they are fundamentally different from raw materials both in their form and use. Furthermore, he pointed out inconsistencies in previous court rulings regarding similar cases which further complicated matters instead of providing clarity about what constitutes 'iron' or 'steel.' Thus Justice Stone concluded his dissent by expressing concern over potential economic implications if such broad interpretations were allowed to stand unchallenged.