In Black et al. v. United States, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to determine whether a federal statute that imposed a tax on distilled spirits was constitutional. The appellants argued that the statute was unconstitutional because it violated the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against taking private property for public use without just compensation. The Supreme Court held that the statute was constitutional. The Court reasoned that the statute did not take private property for public use, but rather imposed a tax on the production of distilled spirits. The Court noted that the tax was imposed on the production of the spirits, not on the spirits themselves, and that the tax was imposed for the purpose of raising revenue, not for the purpose of taking private property for public use. The Court also held that the statute did not violate the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against taking private property for public use without just compensation. The Court reasoned that the tax was imposed on the production of the spirits, not on the spirits themselves, and that the tax was imposed for the purpose of raising revenue, not for the purpose of taking private property for public use. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the federal statute imposing a tax on distilled spirits was constitutional and did not violate the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against taking private property for public use without just compensation.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Black et al. v. United States, arguing that Congress had exceeded its authority under the Constitution by enacting a law which imposed criminal penalties for certain acts of fraud against Native Americans and their property rights. He argued that this was an issue to be addressed through civil proceedings rather than criminal ones, as it did not involve any violation of public order or safety and thus should have been left to state courts instead of being regulated by federal legislation. Furthermore, he contended that if Congress were allowed to pass such laws then they could potentially infringe upon other areas where states traditionally held exclusive jurisdiction over matters related to private rights and contracts between individuals. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that while protecting Native American's property interests was important, doing so through a federal statute went beyond what the framers intended when drafting the Constitution and thus should be struck down as unconstitutional.