In Burnett v. United States, the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of a federal statute that allowed the government to seize and sell a vessel and its cargo for violation of the customs laws. The petitioner, Burnett, was the owner of the vessel and cargo, and he argued that the statute violated the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, which prohibits the government from taking private property for public use without just compensation. The Supreme Court held that the statute was unconstitutional because it allowed the government to take private property without providing just compensation. The Court reasoned that the statute allowed the government to take the property without providing any compensation to the owner, and that this was a violation of the Takings Clause. The Court also noted that the statute did not provide any mechanism for the owner to challenge the seizure or to receive compensation for the taking. The Court concluded that the statute was unconstitutional because it allowed the government to take private property without providing just compensation. The Court held that the Takings Clause requires the government to provide just compensation when it takes private property for public use, and that the statute in question did not provide any such compensation.

Justice Harlan delivered the dissenting opinion in Burnett v. United States, arguing that Congress had exceeded its authority under the Constitution by passing a law which allowed for criminal prosecution of an individual who failed to pay taxes on income derived from illegal activities. He argued that such a law was not authorized by any provision of the Constitution and therefore violated due process rights guaranteed to citizens under the Fifth Amendment. Furthermore, he noted that while it is true that individuals should be held accountable for their actions, this accountability should come through civil proceedings rather than criminal ones since there is no evidence of intent or knowledge required when prosecuting someone for failing to pay taxes on illegally obtained income. In conclusion, Justice Harlan believed Congress had overstepped its bounds and thus his dissent was based upon constitutional grounds as well as principles of fairness and justice.