In United States v. Lawson, the United States Supreme Court considered the question of whether a federal statute that prohibited the sale of liquor within four miles of a military post was constitutional. The defendant, Lawson, had been convicted of violating the statute and appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court. The Court held that the statute was constitutional, finding that Congress had the power to pass laws to protect the military from the effects of alcohol. The Court noted that the statute was a valid exercise of Congress’s power to regulate commerce and protect the military, and that it did not violate the defendant’s rights under the Constitution. The Court also held that the statute was not overly broad or vague, and that it was not an unconstitutional bill of attainder. The Court concluded that the statute was a valid exercise of Congress’s power to protect the military, and that the defendant’s conviction should be upheld.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in United States v. Lawson, arguing that Congress had no authority to pass a law punishing any person for failing to appear as a witness before a grand jury or other court of justice. He argued that this power was reserved exclusively for the states and could not be delegated by them to Congress. Furthermore, he noted that if such power were granted to Congress it would have been done so explicitly in Article I of the Constitution which does not contain any language granting such authority. Justice Field concluded his dissent by noting that even if there was some ambiguity regarding whether or not Congress had this power, it should be resolved against its exercise since "the powers of government are few and defined; those which are necessary and proper being expressly enumerated."