In the 1911 case of Huse v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving customs duties. The plaintiff, Huse, had imported iron ore into the U.S., which was subjected to a duty under an act passed by Congress in July 1897. However, he argued that his shipment should have been exempt from this duty as it fell under a treaty between Spain and the U.S., signed in 1902 following their war over Cuba's independence. This treaty stated that Spanish imports would be treated no less favorably than those coming from "the most favored nation." Since iron ore from Canada was not subject to any import tax at that time due to another agreement with Great Britain (known as Jay's Treaty), Huse claimed his shipment should also be free of such charges. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument and upheld the imposition of duties on his importation. They concluded that while treaties can override previous laws if there is conflict between them, they cannot supersede subsequent legislation unless explicitly stated so within their terms - something which wasn't present in either mentioned treaties.

In the dissenting opinion for Huse v. United States, it was argued that the government did not have a right to seize property without due process of law. The justice contended that while there may be circumstances where immediate seizure is necessary for public safety, this case did not present such an urgency. He believed that allowing the government to take private property without any form of judicial proceeding violated fundamental principles of fairness and justice enshrined in the Constitution. Furthermore, he expressed concern about setting a dangerous precedent where governmental power could infringe upon individual rights with impunity under vague notions of necessity or expediency.