In the 1898 case of Hoenigshaus v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving import duties and tariffs. The plaintiff, Hoenigshaus, was an importer who argued that he had been overcharged by customs officials when importing sugar from abroad due to incorrect classification under tariff laws. He claimed that his imported sugars were not "above No. 16 Dutch standard in color" and thus should have been subjected to lower duty rates than those applied by customs officers. The court held that the Treasury Department's interpretation of what constituted "No. 16 Dutch standard in color" for purposes of levying import duties was reasonable and within its authority to make such determinations based on scientific methods or expert opinions available at the time. Therefore, it upheld the decision made by lower courts against Hoenigshaus' claim for refunding excess charges paid as import duties on sugar imports into America.

In the dissenting opinion for Hoenig v. United States, Justice Peckham argued that the law in question was unconstitutional because it violated an individual's right to privacy and freedom of contract. He contended that while Congress has broad powers under the Commerce Clause, those powers are not unlimited and should not infringe upon personal liberties protected by other constitutional provisions. In this case, he believed that requiring a business owner to disclose his private books and records without any suspicion of wrongdoing amounted to unreasonable search and seizure prohibited by Fourth Amendment protections. Furthermore, he asserted that forcing someone into such disclosure under threat of punishment was tantamount to compulsory self-incrimination forbidden by Fifth Amendment rights. Thus, according to Justice Peckham’s dissenting view, although regulation is necessary for public welfare in certain circumstances; it must be balanced against fundamental principles safeguarding individual freedoms.