In the United States v. Isaacs case of 1892, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning customs duties. The defendant, Mr. Isaacs, had imported goat skins from Buenos Aires and declared them as such upon arrival in New York. However, the Collector of Customs classified these imports under "hair of goats" which carried a higher duty rate than that for goat skins according to existing tariff laws at that time. Mr. Isaacs protested this classification and sought legal redress when his protest was denied by customs officials. The central issue before the court was whether or not there existed an error in classifying these goods under "hair of goats". In its decision, the Supreme Court sided with Mr. Isaacs stating that it found no reason to overrule previous decisions made by lower courts favoring him; hence affirming their rulings instead. This case is significant because it set precedence for future cases involving disputes over import classifications and tariffs - emphasizing careful interpretation based on specific language used within tariff schedules rather than broad categorizations.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Isaacs case of 1892 was not specifically recorded or attributed to a particular justice. However, it can be inferred that the dissenters disagreed with the majority's interpretation of tax law and its application to this specific case. The defendant, Isaacs, had been charged with fraudulently avoiding taxes on distilled spirits by manipulating paperwork and bribing officials. The main point of contention likely revolved around whether Isaacs' actions constituted an evasion of federal laws or were simply unethical business practices outside the purview of criminal prosecution under existing statutes at that time.