In the case of United States v. Five Gambling Devices, the Supreme Court ruled on whether or not a company that manufactures and sells gambling devices can be prosecuted under federal law if they do not register with the government as required by statute. The court held that registration was necessary to prevent illegal interstate commerce in gambling devices, but also found that requiring self-incrimination violated Fifth Amendment rights. Therefore, while manufacturers could still be prosecuted for failing to register their products as required by law, they could not be forced to incriminate themselves in doing so. This ruling clarified how laws regulating interstate commerce should interact with constitutional protections against self-incrimination.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Five Gambling Devices, it was argued that the majority's interpretation of the Johnson Act was overly broad and not in line with congressional intent. The dissenting justices believed that Congress did not intend to prohibit all interstate transportation of gambling devices, but only those intended for illegal use. They pointed out that many states had legalized certain forms of gambling at the time and thus should be allowed to import such devices legally if they so chose. Furthermore, they contended that by interpreting the law as banning all transport regardless of legality or purpose, it could potentially infringe upon state rights to regulate their own affairs within their borders - a violation of federalism principles inherent in U.S constitution.