In the case of Willard, Sutherland & Company v. United States (1922), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government, upholding a lower court's decision that held Willard, Sutherland & Co liable for unpaid customs duties on imported goods. The company had argued that it was not responsible for paying these duties because they were not specifically mentioned in their contract with an overseas supplier who failed to pay them. However, the court found that under existing laws and regulations related to importation at that time, liability for such charges could be implied even if they weren't explicitly stated in a contract. Therefore, as an importer and consignee of record on shipments from abroad into America during World War I era tariff changes - despite no explicit contractual agreement about duty payments - Willard was deemed legally accountable by virtue of its role within this transactional process.

In the dissenting opinion for Willard, Sutherland & Company v. United States, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Section 9 of the Lever Act. He argued that this section was intended to prevent profiteering and excessive prices during wartime rather than regulate all aspects of trade in necessities. According to him, it did not give authority to fix a minimum price or establish terms for sales contracts between private parties. Furthermore, he contended that if Congress had intended such broad regulatory power under this act, it would have clearly stated so in its language instead of leaving it up to judicial interpretation. Therefore, he believed that by interpreting Section 9 as giving such extensive powers over private transactions without explicit congressional intent violated principles of statutory construction and potentially encroached upon constitutional rights related to property ownership and contract freedom.