In the United States v. Stinson case of 1904, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning customs duties. The defendant, Stinson, had imported iron ore into the U.S., and was charged with paying duty under paragraph 167 of the Tariff Act of July 24th, 1897. However, he argued that his imports should have been free from duty under paragraph 182 as they were "crude minerals". The court held that while in common language iron ore might be considered a crude mineral product; for purposes of tariff legislation it is not such but is dutiable merchandise under Paragraph No.167 which imposes a specific rate upon 'iron ore,' including manganiferous iron ore." Therefore, it concluded that Stinson's importation was subject to taxation according to this provision rather than being exempted as he claimed.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Stinson case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through an unlawful search and seizure was inconsistent with Fourth Amendment protections. The dissent contended that allowing such evidence would encourage law enforcement officers to disregard constitutional rights in their pursuit of criminal convictions, undermining the rule of law and eroding public trust in legal institutions. They also expressed concern about potential abuses of power by police, who could use this precedent as justification for invasive searches without proper cause or warrant. Ultimately, they believed that upholding civil liberties should take precedence over securing convictions at any cost.