In the 1895 case of Faust v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving customs duties. The plaintiff, Mr. Faust, imported iron from Germany and was charged with a duty under paragraph 146 of the Tariff Act of October 1st, 1890 which imposed taxes on "bar iron" imports. However, he argued that his import should have been classified as "iron in slabs," which would be free from any duty according to paragraph 158 of the same act. The court held that although there might be some ambiguity in these classifications due to changes in manufacturing processes over time since their original definition by Congress; it is not within its power or competency to provide new definitions for such terms based on current practices or advancements made after those laws were enacted. Therefore, despite Mr.Faust's argument about modern interpretation and usage of these terms being different than when they were defined by Congress originally; his appeal was rejected because courts are bound by statutory language and cannot redefine them based upon subsequent developments.

In the dissenting opinion for Faust v. United States, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the defendant. The dissenting justices believed that any evidence obtained in such a manner should be deemed inadmissible in court as it is fundamentally unjust and contrary to constitutional principles. They contended that allowing such practices would set a dangerous precedent, potentially leading to widespread abuses by law enforcement authorities under the guise of investigating criminal activity. Furthermore, they asserted that upholding this conviction undermined public trust in legal institutions by suggesting that constitutional protections could be disregarded when inconvenient or obstructive to prosecution efforts.