In the Weber v. Freed case of 1915, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a tax imposed on imported raw sugar by the United States Customs Department was constitutional. The plaintiff, Mr. Weber, argued that this tax violated his rights under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause because it amounted to an unlawful taking of property without just compensation and also infringed upon his right to equal protection under law as provided by Fourteenth Amendment. However, in its decision, the court upheld the constitutionality of such taxes stating they were within Congress' power to levy duties on imports for revenue purposes and did not constitute a violation of any constitutional rights or protections afforded to citizens like Mr. Weber who import goods into America from foreign countries.

In the dissenting opinion for Weber v. Freed, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Tariff Act of 1913. He argued that a literal reading of the law would not lead to an absurd result as suggested by his colleagues. Instead, he believed that Congress intended to tax all feathers used for millinery purposes regardless if they were artificially colored or naturally white and undyed. The distinction made by Congress was between crude feathers (those untouched in their natural state) which are exempt from duty, and those prepared for use in millinery (whether dyed or not), which are subject to duty under paragraph 379 of said act. Therefore, according to him, it is irrelevant whether these feathers have been dyed or bleached; what matters is whether they have been processed beyond their raw state into a form suitable for hat-making purposes.