In United States v. Atherton, the United States Supreme Court considered the question of whether a federal statute that prohibited the sale of liquor within four miles of a military post was constitutional. The defendant, Atherton, had been convicted of violating the statute by selling liquor within the prohibited area. The Court held that the statute was constitutional, finding that Congress had the power to pass such a law under the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution. The Court reasoned that Congress had the power to pass laws to protect the military, and that the statute in question was a reasonable exercise of that power. The Court also noted that the statute was not overly broad, as it only applied to a limited area and did not interfere with the rights of individuals outside of that area. In conclusion, the Court held that the statute was constitutional and that Atherton had violated it. The Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of Atherton.

In United States v. Atherton, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a tax imposed on certain real estate transactions by Congress under its power to lay and collect taxes was constitutional. The majority opinion held that the tax in question did not violate any of the provisions of either the Constitution or any other law, and therefore it could be enforced against Atherton. In dissent, Justice Field argued that while Congress had broad powers when it came to taxation, this particular tax exceeded those powers because it taxed an activity which is traditionally within state control - namely land transfers between private parties - rather than something over which only federal authority can extend such as imports or exports. He further argued that if allowed to stand, this decision would open up a wide range of activities for potential taxation by Congress without regard for their traditional role in state government affairs.