United States v. Two Hundred Barrels of Whiskey was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether the government had the right to seize and destroy alcohol that was illegally imported into the country. The case arose when the United States government seized two hundred barrels of whiskey that had been imported into the country without the proper permits. The government argued that the whiskey was contraband and should be destroyed. The defendants argued that the whiskey should be returned to them as it had been legally imported. The Supreme Court held that the government had the right to seize and destroy the whiskey. The Court reasoned that the whiskey was contraband and that the government had the right to seize and destroy it in order to protect the public from the dangers of illegal alcohol. The Court also noted that the government had the right to protect its revenue by preventing the illegal importation of alcohol. The Court held that the government had the right to seize and destroy the whiskey without compensation to the defendants.

In United States v. Two Hundred Barrels of Whiskey, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a tax imposed on distilled spirits by Congress in 1868 was constitutional. The majority opinion found that the tax did not violate any provision of the Constitution and thus upheld it as valid. However, Justice Field dissented from this ruling, arguing that while Congress had authority to impose taxes for revenue purposes under Article I Section 8 Clause 1 of the Constitution, they could not do so if it interfered with state laws or regulations regarding commerce within their borders. In this case, he argued that since whiskey is an article of commerce which can be regulated by states through licensing requirements and other means, then imposing a federal tax on its production would interfere with those rights granted to them by virtue of being part of the Union. He concluded his dissent stating that such interference should only occur when absolutely necessary and in cases where there is no alternative way to raise revenue without infringing upon state sovereignty over matters related to interstate commerce