The United States v. Ballin case in 1891 revolved around the interpretation of what constitutes a quorum in the U.S. House of Representatives for conducting business, as per Article One, Section Five of the Constitution which states that "a Majority of each [house] shall constitute a Quorum to do Business." Joseph G. Ballin and other importers had challenged an increased tariff law passed by Congress arguing it was invalid because less than half of total members were present when votes were casted on certain amendments during its creation process. The Supreme Court ruled against them stating that if those present are more than half and they vote (even if some only abstain), it is enough to meet quorum requirements since their presence alone contributes towards making up a majority necessary for doing business. This ruling affirmed Congressional power to determine its rules including how voting procedures should be conducted.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Ballin, Justice Brewer argued that the Constitution's requirement of a quorum to do business was not merely a majority of members "present," but rather a majority who voted. He contended that if any member present chose not to vote, they should be counted as voting in the negative. This interpretation would make it more difficult for legislative bodies to take action unless there was broad agreement among its members. Brewer believed this safeguarded against potential abuses by small majorities and protected minority rights within these bodies. His view did not prevail; instead, the court upheld Congress' power to determine its own rules including what constitutes a quorum.