In the United States v. Mack et al., 1934, the Supreme Court dealt with a case involving violations of the National Prohibition Act. The defendants were charged with possessing and transporting alcohol illegally in Michigan. They argued that evidence against them was obtained through an unlawful search and seizure by federal agents who did not have a warrant at the time of their arrest or during their subsequent investigation. The court ruled in favor of the government, stating that while it is true that unreasonable searches and seizures are prohibited under Fourth Amendment rights, this does not apply to cases where officers have reasonable cause to believe a crime has been committed before obtaining a warrant for arrest or search. Therefore, since there was sufficient evidence indicating probable cause prior to any search or seizure actions taken by law enforcement officials involved in this case, no constitutional rights were violated.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Mack et al., Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA). He argued that NIRA was unconstitutional because it gave legislative power to the President, which is a violation of separation of powers as outlined in Article I Section 1 and Article II Section 1 of Constitution. Furthermore, he contended that Congress cannot delegate its law-making authority to another branch or an individual under any circumstances. He also expressed concern about potential abuse by those given such power without proper checks and balances. Additionally, he believed that this act interfered with states' rights since it regulated local businesses not involved in interstate commerce. Therefore, according to him, NIRA exceeded federal jurisdiction over commerce among several states as defined by Constitution’s Commerce Clause.