In the United States Supreme Court case of The United States, Plaintiff in Error v. Gotlieb Breitling, the court was asked to decide whether a federal statute that imposed a duty on imported goods applied to merchandise brought into the country before it became law. At issue was whether Congress had authority under Article I of the Constitution to impose such duties retroactively and if so, did this particular statute do so? In its decision, the court held that Congress does have power under Article I of the Constitution to impose taxes or duties on imports even when they were brought in prior to enactment of such laws. Furthermore, it found that this particular statute did not apply retroactively as there were no words used which indicated an intention for it be applied retrospectively. As such, Breitling's conviction for failing pay duty on his imported goods was reversed and he was acquitted from all charges against him.

In the United States Supreme Court case of The United States, Plaintiff in Error v. Gotlieb Breitling, Justice Curtis delivered a dissenting opinion. He argued that the majority's decision was wrong because it failed to consider whether or not Breitling had been given proper notice before being charged with an offense and tried for it. According to Curtis, due process requires that individuals be informed of any charges against them prior to their trial so they can adequately prepare a defense; this did not happen in this case since no notice was provided by the government before charging and trying Breitling for his alleged crime. Furthermore, he noted that even if there were some technical deficiency in how the indictment was presented at trial (which is what led to its dismissal), such deficiencies should have been addressed through motions rather than dismissing all proceedings outright without considering other evidence which may have proven him guilty beyond reasonable doubt as required by law. In conclusion, Justice Curtis believed that justice would best be served if all relevant facts were considered when determining guilt or innocence instead of simply relying on procedural errors alone.