This Supreme Court case involved a dispute between the United States and 1960 Bags of Coffee. The U.S. had seized the coffee from a vessel called “The William” which was owned by citizens of Great Britain, claiming that it was contraband due to its intended use in aiding France during their war with England at the time. The claimants argued that since they were not aware of any such law prohibiting them from trading with France, they should be allowed to keep their goods without penalty or forfeiture as no crime had been committed on their part. Ultimately, however, the court sided with the government and held that although there may have been some ignorance on behalf of those who shipped or received these goods, this did not excuse them from liability for violating an existing embargo against trade with France; thus upholding seizure and forfeiture as lawful punishment for breaking said laws regardless if done unknowingly or intentionally.

In the United States v. 1960 Bags of Coffee, 1814, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not a shipment of coffee imported from Cuba to New York in violation of an embargo imposed by President Thomas Jefferson constituted contraband subject to forfeiture. The majority opinion held that it did and thus affirmed the lower court's decision granting summary judgment for forfeiture. However, Justice Johnson dissented on this point and argued that since Congress had not declared Cuban-imported coffee as contraband at the time of importation, it could not be forfeited under existing law. He further noted that while Congress has broad authority over foreign commerce matters such as embargoes and trade restrictions, they cannot pass laws retroactively punishing individuals who violated those regulations prior to their enactment without violating due process rights guaranteed by both state constitutions and federal statutes. Therefore he concluded that because no statute existed declaring Cuban-imported coffee as contraband when it was imported into New York in 1814, its subsequent seizure was unlawful and should have been reversed by the lower court upon appeal