In R. H. Stearns Co. v. United States, 1933, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving the interpretation of tariff laws and their application to imported merchandise from Canada into the United States by R.H Stearns Company - a Boston-based importer and distributor of goods including leather products like gloves and mittens. The case centered around whether or not certain types of gloves were classified as "gloves for sports" under paragraph 1536(a) of the Tariff Act of 1922 which would subject them to higher duties than regular gloves (30% ad valorem). The court held that these particular types of gloves were indeed sporting goods due to their specific design features intended for use in outdoor games such as golfing, driving etc., despite being also suitable for general use; thus they fell within paragraph 1536(a)'s purview making them liable for higher import duties.

In the dissenting opinion for R. H. Stearns Co. v United States, Justice McReynolds argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction under Section 3 of the Sherman Act was incorrect as it failed to consider whether there had been an actual restraint on trade or commerce among states. He contended that no such restraint existed in this case because all transactions were completed within Massachusetts and did not involve interstate commerce directly enough to warrant federal jurisdiction under the Commerce Clause of Constitution. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "unfair competition" in relation to price discrimination between different purchasers, arguing that it should only apply when prices are set below cost with intent to destroy competition - which was not proven here.