The Supreme Court case Faxon v. United States in 1897 revolved around a dispute over the interpretation of tariff laws. The plaintiff, Faxon, imported iron from Belgium and was charged with a duty under the Tariff Act of 1894 which he paid under protest before suing for recovery. He argued that his importation should have been classified as "iron in slabs," which would carry a lower duty rate than what he had been charged with - "slab iron." The court ruled against him stating that although there might be some ambiguity in terms used to describe different forms of iron, it is clear from context and common understanding within trade circles that 'slab' referred to an intermediate stage product not yet ready for market while 'in slabs' referred to finished products cut into slab form. Therefore, since Faxon's imports were unfinished products they fell correctly under the higher tariff category.

In the dissenting opinion for Faxon v. United States, the justice argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on legacies and distributive shares of personal property was unconstitutional. The justice contended that this tax was not an excise or duty, but rather a direct tax on property which should be apportioned among states according to their population as stipulated by Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of inheritance as a privilege granted by government and thus taxable; instead viewing it as a natural right protected from federal taxation under Tenth Amendment principles of state sovereignty over property law matters. They also expressed concern about potential abuse if Congress were allowed such broad taxing powers without constitutional limits.