The United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Company et al, 2007 case revolved around a dispute over the constitutionality of coal export taxes. The mining companies involved had paid these taxes under protest and later sued for refunds, arguing that the tax was unconstitutional as it violated the Export Clause of the U.S Constitution which prohibits Congress from imposing any tax or duty on exports from any state. Initially, they won their claim in lower courts but upon reaching Supreme Court, it ruled against them stating that they should have first sought a refund through administrative procedures before filing suit in court according to Internal Revenue Code's comprehensive remedial scheme (IRC). Therefore, despite agreeing with their constitutional argument about export taxes being unlawful under Export Clause, Supreme Court held that plaintiffs must adhere to procedural requirements set by IRC before seeking judicial remedies.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Company et al, Justice Ginsburg argued that the majority's interpretation of 26 U.S.C §7422(a) was too narrow and failed to consider Congress' intent behind enacting it. She contended that this statute should not bar taxpayers from seeking a refund for unconstitutional taxes paid more than three years ago under Tucker Act claims. According to her, such an interpretation would unjustly protect the government from liability for unlawfully collected taxes while leaving taxpayers without any recourse. Furthermore, she pointed out that there is no evidence in legislative history suggesting Congress intended §7422(a) to have such a sweeping effect on all tax-related lawsuits against the government.