In the United States v. Coe case of 1898, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving customs duties. The defendant, Coe, imported two paintings from France and declared them as original works by Jean-Baptiste Greuze and Thomas Gainsborough respectively. However, the collector of customs in New York classified these paintings as "copies" rather than originals which led to higher import duties being imposed under the Tariff Act of 1894. Coe protested this decision arguing that they were indeed original artworks. The main issue before the court was whether these paintings could be considered 'originals' or 'copies'. If deemed originals, they would be duty-free; if copies then subject to significant tariffs. The Supreme Court sided with Coe stating that even though there might have been other versions made by those artists themselves or their students during their lifetime (which is common practice), it does not make these particular pieces any less original since each painting is unique due its manual creation process unlike printed reproductions where multiple identical copies can be produced mechanically.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Coe, it was argued that the government did not have a right to seize property without due process of law. The justice believed that this case represented an overreach by the federal government and violated individual property rights. He contended that while there may be circumstances where such seizures are necessary, they should only occur after a fair hearing has been conducted in court. This would ensure both parties had an opportunity to present their arguments before any action is taken. Furthermore, he expressed concern about setting a precedent where individuals could lose their property based on mere suspicion or accusation without proof of wrongdoing being established first in court.