In McAllister v. United States (1890), the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a case involving the interpretation of tariff laws. The plaintiff, McAllister, imported goods from abroad and was charged with duties under the Tariff Act of 1883. He argued that his goods were misclassified by customs officials which led to him being overcharged for import duties. Specifically, he claimed that his merchandise should have been classified as "compositions of glass" rather than "plain green or colored...glass," resulting in lower tariffs. The court held that while there may be ambiguity in defining what constitutes a 'composition' versus plain glass, it is not within its jurisdiction to question administrative decisions unless they are clearly erroneous or arbitrary. It further stated that courts must defer to executive departments regarding matters related to foreign commerce due their expertise and experience in such areas. Therefore, since there was no clear error made by customs officials in classifying McAllister's imports under existing law at the time - even if another classification could also apply - their decision stood and McAllister's appeal was denied.

In the dissenting opinion for McAllister v. United States, Justice Lamar disagreed with the majority's interpretation of a statute regarding tax evasion on distilled spirits. He argued that Congress intended to punish each act of fraud separately and not as one continuous offense, as interpreted by the majority. The defendant was charged with multiple counts of removing spirits from bonded warehouses without paying taxes over several months but was convicted as if it were one ongoing crime rather than separate offenses. Justice Lamar believed this interpretation violated Congressional intent and potentially lessened penalties for repeated violations, thereby undermining efforts to deter such fraudulent activities in future.