In Cooke et al. v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the United States had the right to seize a vessel and its cargo for violating the revenue laws. The vessel, the "Fanny," was owned by the petitioners, who had been charged with smuggling goods into the United States. The petitioners argued that the seizure was illegal because the vessel had been seized without a warrant. The Supreme Court held that the seizure was valid. The Court reasoned that the revenue laws of the United States gave the government the right to seize vessels and their cargo without a warrant if they were suspected of violating the revenue laws. The Court also noted that the petitioners had not been denied due process of law, as they had been given the opportunity to contest the seizure in court. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the seizure of the vessel and its cargo was valid and that the petitioners had not been denied due process of law.

In Cooke v. United States, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a federal statute that allowed for the forfeiture of property used in violation of certain customs laws was constitutional. The majority opinion held that it was, but Justice Field dissented on the grounds that Congress had exceeded its authority under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution by enacting such a law. He argued that this power should be reserved to state legislatures and not delegated to Congress as they had done here. Furthermore, he believed it violated due process rights since no notice or hearing were required before forfeiting someone's property and thus denied them their right to defend themselves against any charges brought against them regarding their use of said property. In conclusion, Justice Field found this particular statute unconstitutional because it overstepped Congressional authority and deprived individuals from their due process rights guaranteed by both common law and the Fifth Amendment