In the United States v. Ansonia Brass and Copper Company case of 1910, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government, asserting its right to impose penalties on corporations for violations of customs laws. The Ansonia Brass and Copper Company had been accused of undervaluing imported goods to evade paying full duties owed under U.S law. The company argued that it was not liable because it did not knowingly or willfully violate any statute; however, this argument was rejected by the court which held that ignorance or mistake about a statutory duty does not excuse noncompliance with customs laws. This ruling reinforced federal authority over importation practices and underscored corporate responsibility for compliance with all relevant statutes.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States v. Ansonia Brass and Copper Company argued that the majority's interpretation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was too broad, potentially criminalizing normal business practices. The dissenters believed that not all restraints on trade were intended to be prohibited by this law, only those which are unreasonable or harmful to competition. They also disagreed with the majority's view that a company could violate anti-trust laws simply by acquiring stock in another company without any intent to restrain trade or create a monopoly. Furthermore, they contended that if Congress had intended such an expansive interpretation of the law, it would have been more explicit in its wording. Therefore, they felt it was inappropriate for courts to infer such wide-ranging implications from ambiguous language.