In the case of United States v. Gettinger and Pomerantz, Copartner (1926), the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over import duties on artificial flowers imported from France by Gettinger and Pomerantz. The issue was whether these items should be classified under paragraph 399 or 400 of the Tariff Act of October 3, 1913. Paragraph 399 imposed a duty on "artificial flowers" while paragraph 400 imposed a higher rate for "articles not specially provided for." The U.S Customs had classified them under paragraph 400 which led to an appeal by Gettinger and Pomerantz who argued that they should fall under paragraph 399 as artificial flowers. The court ruled in favor of Gettinger and Pomerantz stating that although these articles were indeed not specifically mentioned in either paragraphs, it is clear that they are more closely related to “artificial flowers” than any other item listed in the tariff act due to their nature, material used, method of manufacture etc., hence they must be taxed accordingly.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Gettinger and Pomerantz case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction for conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government was incorrect because it relied on an overly broad interpretation of what constitutes a "conspiracy." The dissent contended that there must be clear evidence of intent to commit fraud, not just actions which could potentially lead to fraudulent outcomes. It also pointed out inconsistencies in how similar cases had been handled previously, arguing for more uniformity in legal interpretations and decisions. Furthermore, it emphasized that criminal law should not be used as a tool for enforcing administrative regulations or procedures unless there is explicit statutory authority permitting such use.