In Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893), the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a tomato is a vegetable, not a fruit, under federal law. The ruling on whether the tomato is a fruit or a vegetable came out of a tariff dispute, and the Court decided it by looking at how ordinary people use the words “fruit” and “vegetable” rather than how botanists define them. Justice Horace Gray wrote the opinion, and it has been quoted ever since as a foundational example of reading statutes in their plain, everyday sense.
Why the Question Reached the Supreme Court
The dispute started with money, not science. The Tariff Act of March 3, 1883 put a 10% duty on imported “vegetables in their natural state, or in salt or brine,” while “fruits, green, ripe, or dried” came in duty-free. In the spring of 1886, John Nix and his family imported tomatoes from the West Indies. Edward L. Hedden, the Collector of the Port of New York, called them vegetables and collected the tax.
The Nix family paid under protest and sued on February 4, 1887 to get the money back. Their argument was simple: botanically, a tomato is a fruit, and the tariff’s free list covered fruits. A win would have meant a refund for them and duty-free tomatoes for every importer in the country.
The Court’s Reasoning: Ordinary Language Controls
Justice Gray did not dispute the botany. “Botanically speaking, tomatoes are the fruit of a vine, just as are cucumbers, squashes, beans, and peas,” he wrote. But he separated the science from the statute. Neither “fruit” nor “vegetable” had picked up a special meaning in trade or commerce, so the words had to carry their ordinary, everyday sense.
In everyday life, the Court said, tomatoes are vegetables. They are “grown in kitchen gardens” and “usually served at dinner in, with or after the soup, fish or meats which constitute the principal part of the repast, and not, like fruits generally, as dessert.” That was how Congress used the words, and that was how the tariff had to be read. The trial court had directed a verdict for the collector, and the Supreme Court affirmed. The Nix family owed the duty.
The Dictionaries at Trial
The trial itself was almost a comedy of dictionaries. The plaintiffs read definitions of “fruit” and “vegetable” from Webster’s and Worcester’s. The defense answered by reading the entries for “pea,” “eggplant,” “cucumber,” “squash,” and “pepper,” all botanical fruits treated as vegetables in every kitchen. The plaintiffs then read “potato,” “turnip,” “parsnip,” “cauliflower,” “cabbage,” “carrot,” and “bean.”
Justice Gray addressed the dictionaries directly. Courts take “judicial notice of the ordinary meaning of all words in our tongue,” he wrote, and dictionaries are admitted “not as evidence, but only as aids to the memory and understanding of the court.” They were reference books, not proof. The Court did not need expert testimony to know what the words meant.
The Bean Case That Set the Pattern
The tomato ruling did not appear from nowhere. Justice Gray leaned on Robertson v. Salomon, 130 U.S. 412 (1889), where importers had tried to classify beans as “seeds” for a better tariff rate. Justice Bradley had rejected the move: beans are “seeds in the language of botany or natural history, but not in commerce nor in common parlance.” Beans are used as a vegetable “whether baked or boiled, or forming the basis of soup,” and that practical use is what tariff law cares about.
If beans are not seeds for the tariff, tomatoes are not fruits. Same principle, same result.
The Rule the Case Left Behind
The value of Nix v. Hedden is not really the tomato. It is the interpretive rule the Court applied. Statutory words are read the way regular people understand them unless the legislature signals otherwise. That “ordinary meaning” canon runs through tax law, criminal law, environmental regulation, and contract disputes today. When a modern judge says a statutory term carries its “plain and ordinary meaning,” part of the lineage runs back to this case.
The decision also drew a line around expert testimony. When a statute uses a common word, courts do not need a scientist to explain it. Technical experts help when a statute uses technical terms. Trade and tax laws speak to the general public, so the public’s understanding governs.
Is a Tomato Still Legally a Vegetable?
Yes. More than 130 years later, fresh tomatoes still enter the United States as vegetables. They sit in Chapter 7 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, the vegetables chapter, under heading 0702.00. The classification the Nix family fought has held.
One thing worth keeping straight: the ruling is about statutory interpretation, not biology. Botanically, a tomato is still the fruit of a vine, and the Supreme Court said so plainly. It just does not matter for the law.