In The United States v. Lancaster, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a defendant could be convicted of an offense that had been committed before Congress passed a law making it illegal. In this case, the defendant had sold liquor without paying taxes on it in violation of an act of Congress that was not yet in effect at the time he committed his crime. The court held that although there is no common law or statute criminalizing such conduct prior to passage of the Act, conviction under its provisions would still be valid because "the power to tax involves necessarily and inseparably...the power to punish for disobedience." Thus, even though no laws were broken when Lancaster sold liquor without paying taxes on it, he could still be found guilty since Congress has authority over taxation and can pass laws punishing those who fail to comply with them.

In United States v. Lancaster, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a defendant could be convicted of an offense that had been committed before Congress passed a law making it illegal. The majority opinion held that Congress did not have the power to make laws retroactive and thus conviction was improper. However, Justice Story dissented from this decision arguing that when Congress passes a law criminalizing certain conduct, it is presumed to apply both prospectively and retrospectively unless there is clear language in the statute indicating otherwise. He argued further that such presumption should be applied even if no prior punishment existed for the crime at issue because “the common sense of mankind” dictates that crimes must be punished regardless of when they were committed or what punishments may have previously existed for them. Therefore, he concluded, since there was nothing in the statute indicating otherwise, conviction should stand as valid under existing law