In the United States v. Dotterweich case of 1943, the Supreme Court ruled that a corporate officer could be held criminally responsible for violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by their company even if they were not directly involved in or aware of those actions. The defendant was Joseph Dotterweich, president and general manager of Buffalo Pharmacal Company. His firm had shipped misbranded and adulterated drugs across state lines which violated federal law. Although he claimed no personal knowledge or involvement in these illegal activities, he was convicted under a doctrine known as "responsible corporate officer" liability because his position gave him power to prevent such infractions from occurring within his organization but failed to do so.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Dotterweich, Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's interpretation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act was overly broad and unjustly punitive. He contended that by holding a corporate officer criminally liable for violations committed by subordinates without his knowledge or consent, the court was effectively making him an insurer of their conduct. This view contradicted traditional principles of criminal law which require proof of personal guilt as a prerequisite to punishment. Furthermore, he suggested this approach could discourage capable individuals from accepting positions in industries regulated by such laws due to fear of unwarranted prosecution. The justice also expressed concern about potential abuse where prosecutors might target high-profile defendants rather than those directly responsible for offenses.