In the case of Austin v. United States in 1894, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that property used in illegal activities could be seized by the government even if it was not owned by a person guilty of criminal conduct. The case involved a distillery owner named James W. Austin who had leased his property to another party who then used it for illicit whiskey production without Austin's knowledge or consent. When federal authorities discovered this, they confiscated and sold off all of his equipment under an 1878 law allowing them to seize any property involved in tax evasion schemes regardless of ownership status. In response, Austin sued on grounds that this violated his Fifth Amendment rights against being deprived of property without due process and Eighth Amendment protections against excessive fines. The court rejected these arguments stating that forfeiture did not constitute punishment but rather served as a preventative measure aimed at discouraging future unlawful use of such properties; hence no constitutional violation occurred here since neither due process nor excessive fine provisions applied.

In the dissenting opinion for Austin v. United States, Justice Brewer argued that the forfeiture of property used in illegal activities was a form of punishment and thus subject to constitutional protections against excessive fines. He disagreed with the majority's view that such forfeitures were remedial rather than punitive, asserting instead that they served as penalties for wrongdoing. Brewer also pointed out inconsistencies in how different types of property involved in crimes were treated under law; while some items could be seized regardless of their owners' guilt or innocence, others could not be taken unless their owners had been convicted. This inconsistency suggested to him an arbitrary and unfair application of justice which violated principles enshrined in the Constitution.