The United States v. 150 Crates of Earthen Ware was a case heard by the Supreme Court in 1818. The dispute centered around whether or not the government had authority to seize and confiscate certain goods imported from China that were deemed contraband under existing laws at the time. The defendants argued that they had purchased these items in good faith, believing them to be legal imports, and thus should not have been subject to seizure without due process of law. In its ruling, the court held that while it is true individuals are entitled to their property rights, those rights must yield when there is an overriding public interest involved such as protecting national security or enforcing customs regulations. Thus, even though no criminal charges were brought against anyone for importing these items illegally, they could still be confiscated if found to violate existing laws and regulations governing international trade with foreign countries like China at the time.

In The United States v. 150 Crates of Earthen Ware, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a shipment of earthen ware imported from China was subject to duties under the Tariff Act of 1816. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Johnson argued that the goods in question were not liable for duty because they had been purchased by an American citizen and shipped directly to him without ever entering into commerce or being sold within U.S. borders. He further argued that since Congress had never intended to tax such goods when it passed the Tariff Act, imposing duties on them would be unconstitutional as it would amount to taxation without representation and violate due process rights guaranteed by Article IV Section 2 Clause 1 of the Constitution which states “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities” in other states. Therefore, he concluded that even though these items may have technically fallen under one category listed in the tariff act they should still be exempt from duty as their importation did not constitute commercial activity within U.S borders nor did it involve any sale or exchange between citizens living in different states