Citing the “language of the people whether sellers or consumers,” in 1893 the S.C. ruled on the botanical designation of this

On the December 4, 2025 episode of Jeopardy!, the Final Jeopardy category was “The Supreme Court in the 19th Century.” The clue challenged contestants to recall a decision made by the United States Supreme Court in 1893 that dealt with the classification of a botanical item. The case hinged on how the item was commonly understood by the public—whether by sellers or consumers—rather than its scientific classification. This clue spotlighted one of the more curious rulings in U.S. legal history, where the Court had to decide whether something commonly found on the dinner table was considered a fruit or a vegetable for the purposes of tariff law.

What is a tomato?

In 1893, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Nix v. Hedden that tomatoes should be classified as vegetables rather than fruits, but only in the context of tariff regulations. The issue arose when a New York-based produce importer, John Nix, protested tariffs applied to imported tomatoes under the Tariff Act of 1883. The act levied duties on vegetables but not on fruits. Nix argued that because tomatoes are botanically classified as fruits—developing from the ovary of a flower—they should be exempt from the tax.

The Supreme Court, however, ruled unanimously against Nix. Justice Horace Gray, writing the opinion of the Court, stated that while tomatoes are botanically fruits, they are typically used as vegetables in culinary contexts. Thus, based on their common use and the “language of the people,” tomatoes would be taxed as vegetables. The Court emphasized the everyday understanding of the term rather than a strict scientific definition, setting a precedent for interpreting statutory language through common usage.

The Legal Dispute Behind Nix v. Hedden

The dispute originated when the Port of New York collected tariffs on a shipment of tomatoes imported by the Nix family. The importers contended that since tomatoes are technically fruits, they should be exempt from vegetable duties. Their case was based on botanical science, with supporting dictionary definitions and even expert witnesses brought to court to reinforce the point.

The U.S. government, on the other hand, maintained that the practical use of tomatoes in meals—typically cooked or served in savory dishes—was far more relevant to the intent of the tariff law. The Court agreed, choosing to rely on common understanding and culinary context rather than botanical criteria. The ruling set a memorable example of legal interpretation grounded in the real-world usage of language rather than in scientific taxonomy.

Impact and Legacy of the Ruling

Although Nix v. Hedden didn’t have widespread legal implications beyond customs law, it became a well-known case in American legal history for its unusual subject matter and its illustration of how the Court interprets statutes. The decision underscored the principle that when legal texts are ambiguous or unclear, courts often turn to how ordinary people use and understand terms.

The ruling has since been cited in academic discussions on statutory interpretation and has become a fixture in legal textbooks. It is also frequently referenced in popular culture and trivia games, where the fruit-versus-vegetable debate continues to entertain. Beyond the legal field, it has influenced public understanding of how everyday language plays a role in law.

A Case Rooted in Language, Not Botany

Justice Gray’s decision in Nix v. Hedden explicitly acknowledged the distinction between scientific and common definitions. In his opinion, he wrote that “the ordinary meanings of the words ‘fruit’ and ‘vegetables’” should guide the application of the tariff law, not technical botanical classifications. He referred to common dictionary definitions and emphasized the way tomatoes were typically served—“as part of the dinner, and not, like fruits generally, as dessert.”

This pragmatic approach revealed the Court’s deference to public understanding over technical expertise in certain contexts. It also reinforced the idea that legal interpretations can—and sometimes must—reflect everyday experience rather than academic or scientific precision, especially when determining the intent behind a law.

Why Nix v. Hedden Still Matters

Over 130 years later, Nix v. Hedden remains a remarkable case not because it radically reshaped the law, but because it illustrates how even seemingly trivial questions can carry significant legal and economic weight. The tomato ruling is a reminder that the Supreme Court’s docket has long included cases that intersect with ordinary life in unexpected ways.

While the case may seem humorous on the surface, its underlying logic and interpretive framework continue to inform how courts approach statutory ambiguity. Whether dealing with trade laws, consumer protection, or other regulations, the balance between expert definitions and public understanding is still a central issue in legal interpretation—just as it was in the tomato debate of 1893.