The United States Supreme Court case, United States v. United States Shoe Corporation in 1997 revolved around the constitutionality of a Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT). The HMT was imposed on exporters based on the value of their cargo and was used to fund harbor maintenance. U.S. Shoe Corp argued that this tax violated the Export Clause of the Constitution which prohibits Congress from imposing any tax or duty on exports from any state. The government countered by arguing that it wasn't a tax but rather a user fee for port usage services provided by federal agencies such as dredging channels and maintaining docking facilities. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of U.S. Shoe Corp., stating that while user fees are permissible, they must be fair and proportional to services rendered - something not achieved with HMT since it's calculated based on cargo value rather than actual use or benefit derived from harbor facilities/services. This ruling led to significant changes in how harbor maintenance is funded, ensuring more equitable distribution of costs among all users including importers, domestic shippers, cruise lines etc., instead just targeting exporters.

In the case of United States v. United States Shoe Corporation, there was no dissenting opinion recorded. The decision by the Supreme Court was unanimous in favor of U.S. Shoe Corp., ruling that Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT) on exports violated the Export Clause of the Constitution.