In the case of Alexander v. United States (1905), the U.S Supreme Court upheld a lower court's decision that allowed for the seizure and destruction of lottery tickets as well as related materials used in promoting lotteries, which were deemed illegal under federal law. The defendant, Charles B. Alexander, was convicted on charges relating to his involvement in operating an interstate lottery business through mail services. He challenged this conviction arguing that it violated his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and due process, along with his Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court rejected these arguments stating that such items are not protected by property rights if they're being used for unlawful purposes; thus their confiscation doesn't constitute an unreasonable search or seizure nor does it violate due process rights since they have no lawful use. Furthermore, regarding self-incrimination concerns raised by Alexander about providing evidence against himself via seized documents - the court clarified that only compelled testimonial evidence falls within Fifth Amendment protections but not physical objects like papers or other tangible things involved in criminal activity.

In the dissenting opinion for Alexander v. United States, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. argued that the majority's decision was a dangerous expansion of federal power over individual rights and state sovereignty. He contended that the Sherman Anti-Trust Act did not give Congress authority to regulate local commerce or intrastate activities, as this would infringe upon states' rights under the Constitution. Furthermore, he disagreed with their interpretation of 'restraint of trade,' asserting it should only apply to direct restraints rather than indirect ones like those in question in this case (i.e., monopolistic practices). Lastly, he expressed concern about potential misuse of judicial power if courts were allowed to decide what constitutes reasonable or unreasonable restraint on trade based on subjective standards instead of clear legal definitions.