In the 1895 case of Post v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving customs duties and import taxation. The plaintiff, Post, imported goods from abroad and was required to pay an import tax upon their arrival in America. However, he argued that his goods were not subject to this tax because they had been previously exported from America before being returned again after some modifications overseas. His argument relied on a law stating that American products modified abroad could be re-imported without additional taxes if the foreign value added did not exceed 10% of their original cost. The court disagreed with Post's interpretation of this law. It held that once an item has been exported out of America it loses its domestic character until it is brought back into the country legally through payment of appropriate duties or under specific exceptions provided by law - which did not apply in this case as per court’s interpretation. Therefore, even though these items were originally made in America and only underwent minor changes while abroad (less than 10% increase), they still needed to go through regular customs procedures including payment of any applicable taxes when re-imported back into US.

In the dissenting opinion for Post v. United States, Justice Brewer argued that the government did not have a right to seize and sell property without providing due process of law. He contended that while it was within Congress's power to regulate commerce, this did not extend to seizing property without proper legal proceedings. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "necessity," arguing that just because something is necessary does not mean it is lawful or constitutional. The justice also expressed concern about potential abuses of power if such seizures were allowed unchecked by judicial oversight or due process protections.