In the United States v. Andrews case of 1900, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning bankruptcy laws and their application to insurance policies. The defendant, Mr. Andrews, had taken out life insurance policies before declaring bankruptcy. After his declaration of bankruptcy but before his death, he continued paying premiums on these policies with money that was not part of his estate at the time of filing for bankruptcy. Upon Mr. Andrew's death, the trustee in charge of managing his bankrupt estate claimed that these policy payouts should be considered part of the bankrupt estate and used to pay off creditors. The Supreme Court disagreed with this claim by ruling in favor of Mr. Andrews' beneficiaries (his wife and children). They held that because Mr.Andrews paid for those premiums after declaring bankruptcy using funds not included in his initial estate inventory when he filed for insolvency; therefore they were separate from it.The court concluded that such payments did not constitute fraudulent transfers under existing law as argued by trustees since they were made post-bankruptcy declaration.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Andrews case argued that the court's decision to uphold a tax on distilled spirits was incorrect. The dissenters believed that this tax violated the Constitution's requirement for uniformity in taxation across all states and territories, as it disproportionately affected certain regions over others due to differences in production costs and market prices. They also contended that such an excise tax should be levied only on commodities produced within U.S borders, not imported goods like foreign-made spirits. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of what constitutes “production,” arguing that aging or storing whiskey does not increase its value or change its nature enough to warrant additional taxation under law.