In the case of Thompson v. Thompson, AKA Clay (1987), the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with interpreting Section 3 of the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA). The petitioner, Mr. Thompson, argued that this section provided a federal cause of action for parents whose custody rights had been violated by another parent who removed their child from its home state without consent or court approval. However, his ex-wife and respondent in this case disagreed with his interpretation. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously against Mr. Thompson's claim stating that PKPA did not create an implied private right to sue under federal law for violations of its provisions regarding interstate child custody determinations. Instead, it held that Congress intended PKPA to be enforced through state courts where most child custody matters are resolved. This decision clarified how PKPA should be applied and confirmed that disputes over parental kidnapping were primarily a matter for state rather than federal jurisdiction unless there is explicit statutory provision providing otherwise.

In the dissenting opinion for Thompson v. Thompson, AKA Clay, 1987 case, it was argued that the majority's interpretation of Section 6103(h)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code was incorrect. The dissent believed that this section should be read to allow disclosure of tax return information in a civil proceeding relating to federal taxes when such information directly relates to a transactional relationship between parties involved in an action or proceeding. They contended that Congress intended for this provision to apply broadly and not just limitedly as interpreted by the majority. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s view on legislative history and intent behind Section 6103(h)(4). In their perspective, there were no clear indications from Congress suggesting such narrow application only towards criminal proceedings or those involving tax administration issues.