The U.S. Supreme Court case Waite et al., v. Macy et al., 1917, revolved around the importation of tea into the United States and its subsequent taxation. The plaintiffs, Waite and others who were general appraisers appointed by the Secretary of Treasury as a Board of Tea Appeals, contested that Macy's company had imported tea which was not up to standard according to US law at that time. They argued this inferior quality should result in a lower tax valuation for said imports than what was claimed by Macy's company upon entry into the country. However, Carter, Macy & Company countered that they had complied with all necessary regulations regarding their imported goods' quality standards and thus deserved their original tax assessment value based on these claims. In ruling on this matter, the court held in favor of Carter, Macy & Company stating there wasn't sufficient evidence provided by Waite et al., proving any violation or misrepresentation concerning product quality from them during importation process hence no need for re-evaluation or reduction in initial assessed taxes.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Waite et al. v. Macy et al., argued that the Board of Tea Appeals, as an administrative body, should not have been given judicial powers by Congress to make final determinations on tea importation standards without any provision for a proper judicial review. The dissenters believed this was unconstitutional because it violated principles of separation of powers and due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. They contended that only courts could exercise such authority and allowing an administrative board to do so undermined checks and balances inherent in our constitutional system. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority's interpretation that these decisions were merely "fact-finding" rather than legal judgments; arguing instead that these decisions had significant legal implications affecting property rights which required court oversight.