In the United States v. Engard case of 1904, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over customs duties. The defendant, William Engard, had imported iron into Philadelphia and disputed the amount of duty he was charged under the Dingley Tariff Act. He argued that his goods were "iron in slabs" which should be taxed at 15% ad valorem rather than as "plates for bridges" which would attract a higher rate of 20%. The court held that although there was no specific provision for 'slab iron' in the tariff act, it could not be classified as 'plates for bridges'. This is because these plates are usually prepared or manufactured to some extent before use while slab iron requires further processing before it can be used in construction. Therefore, they concluded that Mr. Engard's imports should have been classified under a more general category attracting only 15% duty.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Engard case argued that the government should not be allowed to seize property without providing just compensation, even during times of war. The justice believed that this principle was a fundamental part of American law and constitutionally protected under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. He contended that allowing such seizures would set a dangerous precedent, undermining private property rights and potentially leading to abuses of power by the government. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "public use," arguing it was too broad and could justify virtually any seizure or appropriation by claiming it served some public purpose.