In the Matter of the United States v. Eighty-Four Boxes of Sugar, Tufts and Clarke Claimants was a case heard by the US Supreme Court in 1833. The dispute arose when 84 boxes of sugar were seized from two ships owned by claimants John Tufts and James Clarke for violating an embargo act passed during Thomas Jefferson's presidency. The government argued that it had a right to seize any goods imported into or exported out of American ports without paying duties if they violated an embargo law, while Tufts and Clarke claimed their property should not have been taken as they did not know about the embargo at the time it was imposed. After hearing arguments from both sides, Chief Justice Marshall ruled in favor of Tufts and Clark, finding that ignorance is no excuse for breaking laws but also noting that individuals cannot be held responsible for acts which are beyond their control or knowledge. He concluded that since neither party knew about nor intended to violate any laws at the time this incident occurred, there could be no forfeiture on either side; thus allowing them to reclaim their property with no penalty attached

In the Matter of the United States v. Eighty-Four Boxes of Sugar, Tufts and Clarke Claimants, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should not have dismissed the case on procedural grounds. He believed that it was necessary to consider whether or not Congress had intended for this particular seizure to be made under their authority as granted by Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3 of the Constitution. In his view, if Congress had intended for such seizures to take place then they would have provided specific instructions regarding how these cases were to be handled procedurally. As no such instructions existed at this time, Justice McLean felt that it was inappropriate for them to dismiss this case without considering its merits first. Furthermore, he noted that even though there may have been some irregularities in how this particular seizure took place due to lack of clear guidance from Congress at the time; those issues could still potentially be addressed through other legal means outside of dismissing it entirely on procedural grounds alone.