In the case of Campbell, Federal Prohibition Administrator, et al. v. Galeno Chemical Company et al., 1929, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on whether or not a permit issued by the federal government for industrial alcohol production could be revoked without notice and hearing. The Galeno Chemical Company had been granted such a permit but it was later cancelled by Federal Prohibition Administrator Roy A Haynes due to allegations that they were diverting some of their product for illegal uses during prohibition. The company sued arguing that this cancellation violated their Fifth Amendment rights as it deprived them of property (the permit) without due process of law - specifically, no notice or hearing was given before revocation. The court sided with Campbell and held that since permits are privileges granted by the state rather than property rights owned by individuals or companies, they can be revoked at any time if public interest is threatened; thus there's no requirement for prior notice or hearing under Fifth Amendment protections against deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process.

In the dissenting opinion for Campbell, Federal Prohibition Administrator, et al. v. Galeno Chemical Company et al., Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and violated principles of statutory interpretation. He contended that the Volstead Act did not give federal prohibition administrators authority to seize property without a warrant or due process of law. The act only allowed seizures in cases where there was evidence of criminal activity, which wasn't present in this case according to him. Furthermore, he believed that allowing such broad powers would lead to potential abuses by government officials and infringe upon individual rights protected under Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures.