Fruits, Vegetables, and the Supreme Court

SOURCE: CARTOONSTOCK

Throughout its long, illustrious history, the Supreme Court has redefined the cultural, political, economic, and social landscape of the nation a multitude of times. From Roe v. Wade to Brown v. Board of Education, there exists no faster or more sweeping way to revise the American world than through Federal litigation via the SCOTUS. Despite this, not every case heard by the Court has changed the world. In fact, many of them seem like they came straight out of a Doonesbury comic or Saturday Night Live skit. For my last blog post of the semester, I thought I’d break a few of these down and show everyone just how ludicrous some of the cases can get.

Have you ever been asked is a tomato is a fruit or vegetable? I’m sure by this point in your life, you have heard that technically (aka biologically speaking) a tomato is a fruit, though no one really looks at it like it is. Interestingly, in 1983 the Court decided upon the matter once and for all. If you’ve learned anything over the course of this blog, I hope that you understand that a person must have a tangible and substantial reason (called “standing”) for pursuing litigation before any court in the United States.

Considering this, this case wasn’t just brought before the court because they were bored one day and wanted to define fruits and veggies… rather, the issue was brought up due to wording in the tax code that taxed fruits and vegetables at different rates (imported vegetables had a 10% tariff at the time, while fruits did not). The case, Nix v. Hedden, eventually ruled that although botanically speaking a tomato had all the characteristics of a fruit, it would be legally classified as a vegetable.  In his 1893 opinion, Justice Horace Gray wrote:

“Botanically speaking, tomatoes are the fruit of a vine, just as are cucumbers, squashes, beans, and peas, but in the common language of the people, whether sellers or consumers of provisions, all these are vegetables.”

Considering this, the next time someone tries to be slick with you and tell you that a tomato is a fruit, be sure to cite Nix v. Hedden in your futile and meaningless defense.

The age old fruits and veggies dispute isn’t the only thing that the justices have decided upon that is of questionable purpose. In United States v. Ninety-Five Barrels, More or Less, Alleged Apple Cider Vinegar, the nine justices on the Court unanimously decided that apple cider vinegar is mislabeled when vinegar is made from dried apples instead of regular old-fashioned ripe apples. Interestingly enough, the defendant in this case was not an attorney at all — it was simply the 95 (approximately, because no one ever bothered to count them) barrels of dried apple vinegar that were carted into the court.

Obviously this fits the bill of absurdity when it comes to the limits and reach of the Supreme Court, though I find it rather interesting that the precedent established by this case has actually done a lot to protect people to this day. Take a look at any drug or food object in any store, and you will see the label of the item complete with the branding and nutritional facts. Right below the branding, you will typically see a basic description of what the product actually is in little white letters. This not only creates transparency as to what you are getting out of a product, but it also allows for a reasonable effect to be assigned to each product. This is especially useful when considering the labeling of over the counter drugs.

It provides a bit of comic relief to me that we can thank an unknown quantity of inanimate apple vinegar barrels for drug and food safety. This just goes to show that amidst all the fighting, confusion, and seriousness of government and law, good things can come in the most unsuspecting of ways.