In the 1925 case of Lipshitz & Cohen v. United States, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over import duties on artificial flowers imported from France by Lipshitz & Cohen. The company argued that these items should be classified as "toys," which would result in lower tariffs under U.S customs law at that time. However, the government contended they were not toys but rather articles made of feathers and thus subject to higher duty rates. The court ruled in favor of the United States, stating that while some children might play with these artificial flowers, their primary purpose was for decoration or ornamentation and therefore could not be considered toys under any reasonable interpretation of tariff laws. Consequently, they upheld the classification given by customs officials and affirmed higher duty charges on such imports.

In the dissenting opinion for Lipshitz & Cohen v. United States, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through wiretapping violated constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The dissenting justices believed that the use of wiretapped conversations as evidence constituted an invasion of privacy and should be considered illegal under Fourth Amendment rights. They contended that allowing such practices would set a dangerous precedent, potentially leading to widespread abuses by law enforcement agencies in their efforts to gather evidence against suspected criminals. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential violations of Fifth Amendment rights protecting individuals from self-incrimination if these types of surveillance methods were permitted without restrictions or oversight.