In the United States v. Baird case of 1893, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving customs duties and importation laws. The defendant, Baird, had imported iron ore into Pittsburgh from Canada and was charged with paying a duty under an act of Congress which imposed taxes on such imports. However, he argued that since Pittsburgh was not a port of entry for foreign goods as defined by law at that time, his goods should not be subject to this tax. The court disagreed with Baird's argument stating that while it is true Pittsburgh wasn't designated as an official port of entry in the traditional sense (i.e., coastal or border city where international trade enters), it did have customhouse facilities making it capable of receiving imported goods directly from abroad via railway systems connected to other ports like Philadelphia or New York City; thus qualifying as a "port" within meaning intended by Congress when they enacted tariff laws applicable nationwide regardless geographical location within U.S boundaries.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Baird, Justice Brewer argued that the government had no right to seize property without due process of law. He contended that while it was within Congress's power to regulate commerce between states, this did not extend to seizing goods in transit without a hearing or trial. Furthermore, he asserted that even if such seizures were permissible under certain circumstances (such as when public health is at risk), they should be carried out by state authorities rather than federal ones - unless there is clear evidence of an inability or unwillingness on the part of state officials to act appropriately. In his view, allowing federal intervention in these cases would undermine states' rights and upset the balance of powers established by the Constitution.