In United States v. Harrison, the Supreme Court considered a case involving an act of Congress that imposed taxes on distilled spirits and provided for the forfeiture of any stills used to produce untaxed liquor. The defendant in this case was charged with violating the Act by using such a still without paying taxes. He argued that he should not be held liable because he had no knowledge or intent to violate the law, but rather believed his actions were lawful due to advice from local officials who told him it was permissible under state law. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that ignorance of federal laws is not an excuse for violation and thus affirming Congress’ power over taxation even when it conflicts with state laws.

In United States v. Harrison, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal statute that imposed penalties on persons who sold liquor without paying an excise tax violated the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination. The majority of justices held that it did not violate this right because Congress had a legitimate interest in collecting taxes and enforcing laws related to public health and safety. However, Justice McLean dissented from this opinion, arguing that the law was unconstitutional because it required individuals to incriminate themselves by admitting they were selling alcohol without paying taxes before any penalty could be imposed upon them. He argued that such compelled testimony would violate their rights under both the Fifth Amendment and Article I Section 9 of the Constitution which prohibits bills of attainder or ex post facto laws.