In Bailey and Others v. The United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the United States had the right to seize and sell the property of a group of individuals who had been convicted of violating the Revenue Act of 1864. The individuals argued that the seizure and sale of their property was a violation of their Fifth Amendment rights, which protect citizens from being deprived of their property without due process of law. The Supreme Court held that the seizure and sale of the individuals' property was not a violation of their Fifth Amendment rights. The Court reasoned that the Revenue Act of 1864 was a valid exercise of Congress' power to tax, and that the seizure and sale of the individuals' property was a necessary consequence of their failure to pay the taxes imposed by the Act. The Court further held that the individuals had been given due process of law, as they had been given notice of the seizure and sale of their property and had been given an opportunity to contest the seizure and sale in court. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the seizure and sale of the individuals' property was a valid exercise of Congress' power to tax, and that the individuals had been given due process of law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Bailey and Others v. The United States, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and common sense. He argued that Congress had no authority under the Constitution to pass a law punishing individuals for failing to perform military service when they were not liable by any prior act of their own or by any contract with government. Furthermore, he noted that such a law would be oppressive because it could subject citizens who had done nothing wrong to criminal punishment without due process of law. Justice Field also argued that if Congress did have this power, then it should only be exercised in cases where there is an imminent danger of invasion or insurrection which requires immediate action on behalf of the nation’s security; otherwise, such laws are unconstitutional as they violate fundamental rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. Finally, he concluded his dissent by noting how dangerous it would be for Congress to have unchecked power over citizens' lives and liberties without having first established some sort of legal basis upon which its actions can rest.