Alling & Another v. United States was a Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether the United States government had the right to take possession of a vessel that had been seized by the United States Navy for alleged violations of the Neutrality Act. The plaintiffs, Alling & Another, were the owners of the vessel and argued that the seizure was illegal and that the government had no right to take possession of the vessel. The Supreme Court held that the government had the right to take possession of the vessel, as it was necessary to protect the neutrality of the United States. The Court noted that the Neutrality Act was a valid exercise of the government's power to protect the nation's neutrality, and that the government had the right to take possession of the vessel in order to prevent it from being used to violate the Neutrality Act. The Court also noted that the government had acted in good faith in seizing the vessel, and that the plaintiffs had not been deprived of their property without due process of law. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the government had the right to take possession of the vessel in order to protect the neutrality of the United States, and that the plaintiffs had not been deprived of their property without due process of law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Alling & Another v. United States, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and justice. He argued that Congress had no power to pass a statute which would take away private property without compensation, as it had done with this case. The statute in question provided for the forfeiture of certain lands owned by two individuals who were convicted of violating an act prohibiting them from cutting timber on public land without permission. Justice Field argued that such a taking violated due process under the Fifth Amendment because it deprived these individuals of their property rights without just compensation or any other legal remedy available to them for its recovery. Furthermore, he noted that if Congress could pass laws like this one then there was nothing stopping them from passing similar statutes which would deprive citizens of their life and liberty as well as their property rights - something clearly prohibited by both natural law and constitutional protections against arbitrary government action. In conclusion, Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating emphatically: "The Constitution is not intended to confer upon Congress unlimited powers over persons or things within its jurisdiction."