In the United States v. Emory et al., 1941, the Supreme Court dealt with a case concerning the interpretation of Section 3(a) of the Emergency Price Control Act (EPCA). The defendants were charged with selling beef at prices exceeding those established by EPCA regulations. They argued that they had purchased their meat from farmers who did not come under EPCA jurisdiction and thus should be exempted from its price controls. However, this argument was rejected by both lower courts and eventually by the Supreme Court as well. The court held that once commodities entered into trade channels where maximum prices have been fixed, such goods could not be sold at higher rates regardless of their origin or previous transactions involving them. Therefore, it upheld convictions against all defendants for violating provisions of EPCA.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Emory case argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of law and an unwarranted extension of federal power. The dissenters believed that the defendants' actions did not constitute a violation of federal law because they were acting within their rights as state officials to enforce local laws, even if those laws were later found to be unconstitutional. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constitutes "willful" violation, arguing that it should require proof of specific intent to violate constitutional rights rather than mere knowledge or recklessness. Furthermore, they contended that this expansive view would have far-reaching implications for state sovereignty and individual liberties by potentially criminalizing any action taken by public officials in good faith but later deemed unlawful.