In the case of Tedrow v. A.T. Lewis & Son Dry Goods Company et al., 1920, the United States Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a federal district attorney had the authority to bring suit against a corporation for alleged violations of wartime price regulations established under the Lever Act during World War I. The defendants argued that only an individual who suffered direct harm from such violations could initiate legal action, not a government official acting on behalf of public interest. However, in its decision, the Supreme Court upheld broad prosecutorial powers and ruled in favor of U.S District Attorney Tedrow's right to sue on behalf of general public welfare and enforce compliance with federal law by corporations.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Tedrow v. A.T. Lewis & Son Dry Goods Company argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found that a federal tax on sales by manufacturers was unconstitutional, was incorrect. The dissenters believed that this tax did not violate any constitutional provisions and should have been upheld as valid under Congress' power to levy taxes for revenue purposes. They contended that the law imposing such a tax was clear and unambiguous, making it unnecessary for courts to interpret its meaning or intent beyond what is explicitly stated within it. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view that this type of taxation interfered with states' rights or intruded upon their jurisdiction over local trade activities.