In the case of Perry Browning et al. v. E.M Hooper et al., 1925, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a Nevada state law that allowed for the sale of property to pay off delinquent taxes violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs argued that they were not given sufficient notice before their properties were sold to cover unpaid taxes and penalties. However, after examining Nevada's tax laws and procedures in place at that time, which included public notices about pending sales in local newspapers as well as personal notifications sent by registered mail or delivered personally by a sheriff or deputy, the court ruled against them. The justices concluded that these measures provided adequate opportunity for property owners to be informed about any impending actions concerning their assets; therefore no violation of due process had occurred. This decision reinforced states' authority to enforce tax laws and collect owed revenues while also affirming citizens' constitutional protections against arbitrary government action.

In the dissenting opinion for Perry Browning et al. v. E.M. Hooper et al., Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., joined by Justice Louis Brandeis, disagreed with the majority's ruling that a Nevada law allowing creditors to seize and sell property of debtors who had moved out of state was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Holmes argued that states should have broad authority to regulate their own internal affairs without interference from federal courts unless there is a clear violation of constitutional rights, which he did not believe was present in this case. He contended that it was within Nevada's power to pass such legislation as part of its efforts to manage debts and protect local creditors' interests against those who might try to evade their obligations by moving away.