In the case of Bernard G. Farrar and Joseph C. Brown v. The United States, the plaintiffs in error argued that a federal law requiring them to pay duties on goods imported from abroad was unconstitutional because it violated their right to due process under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument, ruling that Congress had acted within its authority when enacting such laws and thus did not violate any constitutional rights held by individuals or states. Furthermore, they found that since these taxes were imposed uniformly across all imports regardless of origin or destination, no individual's rights were being infringed upon as a result of this legislation; rather it was simply an exercise in taxation for revenue purposes which is well within Congress' power according to Article I Section 8 Clause 1 of the Constitution.

In the case of Bernard G. Farrar and Joseph C. Brown vs The United States, Chief Justice Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion on behalf of himself and two other justices. He argued that the court had no jurisdiction to hear this case because it was not an appeal from any decision made by a district or circuit court, but rather an original action brought directly to the Supreme Court in order for them to decide whether certain land grants were valid or not. Marshall believed that since there was no prior judgment rendered by another court, they could not exercise their appellate power over it as provided in Article III Section 2 of the Constitution which states "in all cases affecting ambassadors...and those in which a state shall be party". As such he concluded that this matter should have been heard at either a district or circuit level before being presented to the Supreme Court for review.