In the case of United States v. Howard, trading as Stokes Fish Co., 1956, the Supreme Court dealt with issues related to taxation and business operations. The defendant, Howard who operated under the name Stokes Fish Company was charged for not paying taxes on his income derived from shrimping activities in international waters. He argued that he should be exempted from tax because his earnings were generated outside U.S jurisdiction. However, the court ruled against him stating that a citizen's foreign-earned income is still subject to federal taxation unless specifically excluded by law. This decision reinforced the principle that U.S citizens are taxed on their worldwide income regardless of where it is earned.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Howard case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction for selling uninspected fish was incorrect and overstepped federal authority. The dissent contended that there was no clear evidence of intent to violate the law, as required by criminal statutes, because it wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt that Howard knew he was selling uninspected fish. Furthermore, they believed this ruling expanded federal power too far into areas traditionally regulated by states - specifically commercial fishing operations within state waters. They also expressed concern about potential negative impacts on small businesses due to increased regulatory burdens imposed by such interpretations of federal laws.