In the case of United States v. Sherman & Sons Company, the Supreme Court examined whether a company could be held liable for selling adulterated food products under the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906. The defendant, Sherman & Sons Company, had sold canned peas that were found to contain traces of copper sulfate - a substance used to enhance their green color but potentially harmful if consumed in large quantities. The company argued they were not aware that their supplier was using this additive and therefore should not be held responsible for violating federal law. However, the court ruled against them stating that ignorance did not absolve them from liability under the act which aimed at protecting public health by ensuring purity and quality in food products sold across state lines. It further clarified that it is incumbent upon sellers to ensure what they sell is free from any deleterious substances regardless of their knowledge or intent.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States v. Sherman & Sons Company argued that the majority's interpretation of the law was overly broad and could potentially lead to unjust outcomes. The dissenting justices believed that while it is important to prevent fraudulent practices, it is equally crucial not to penalize honest businesses for minor errors or omissions which do not materially affect a product's value or quality. They contended that if every small mistake in labeling were deemed illegal, many reputable companies would be unfairly punished and this could have detrimental effects on commerce as a whole. Furthermore, they expressed concern about giving too much power to government inspectors who might use their authority arbitrarily or capriciously. In conclusion, these justices felt that the court should interpret laws narrowly when they can result in severe penalties for businesses.