The United States v. Butler et al., Receivers of Hoosac Mills Corp case in 1935 revolved around the constitutionality of a tax imposed under the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) of 1933, which aimed to stabilize agricultural prices during the Great Depression. The AAA taxed processors of farm products and used these funds to subsidize farmers who agreed to limit production. In this case, Butler was a processor who challenged the legality of this tax. The Supreme Court ruled that while Congress has broad power to levy taxes, it cannot use taxation as a means for executing powers not delegated by the Constitution - such as regulating agriculture at state level - thus declaring AAA unconstitutional on grounds that it attempted an unwarranted control over local agricultural production through coercive economic measures disguised as taxation.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Butler et al., Justice Stone argued that the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which imposed a tax on processors of farm products and used those funds to subsidize farmers, was constitutional. He disagreed with the majority's view that this act violated the Tenth Amendment by invading powers reserved to states. Instead, he asserted that Congress had broad power under Article I Section 8 of Constitution to levy taxes and provide for general welfare of nation; thus it could use its taxing power indirectly to achieve regulatory ends not otherwise within its authority. Furthermore, he contended there was no coercion involved as participation in program was voluntary for farmers who would only receive benefits if they complied with production limits set by Secretary of Agriculture.