United States v. Baker is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1887. The case involved a dispute between the United States and William Baker, a former collector of customs in the port of New York. The United States had brought suit against Baker for failing to pay duties on certain imported goods. Baker argued that the goods were exempt from duties under the Tariff Act of 1883. The Supreme Court held that the Tariff Act of 1883 did not exempt the goods from duties. The Court reasoned that the Tariff Act of 1883 was intended to protect domestic industry, and that the exemption of the goods in question would have been contrary to the purpose of the Act. The Court also held that the United States was entitled to recover the unpaid duties from Baker. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the Tariff Act of 1883 did not exempt the goods from duties, and that the United States was entitled to recover the unpaid duties from Baker. The Court's decision established that the Tariff Act of 1883 was intended to protect domestic industry, and that exemptions from duties must be clearly stated in order to be valid.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in United States v. Baker, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on a misinterpretation of the law and would lead to an unjust result. He argued that Congress had not intended for individuals who were convicted of crimes before their enlistment into service to be discharged from military duty without pay or allowances due them upon completion of their terms. The majority opinion held that such persons could be discharged without any compensation, but Justice Field disagreed with this interpretation and believed it should only apply when there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that they committed a crime prior to enlistment. Furthermore, he noted how discharging these individuals without pay or allowance would leave them destitute after serving out their sentences as soldiers; thus, he concluded by asserting his belief that Congress did not intend for such harsh treatment towards those who have served honorably in defense of our country.