In Dodge v. United States (1926), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the U.S. government, upholding its right to tax income derived from property owned by a Native American tribe member who had been granted U.S. citizenship under an 1887 law known as the General Allotment Act or Dawes Act. The plaintiff, Henry Dodge, argued that his land and income were exempt from taxation due to treaties between his tribe and the federal government which predated this act; however, these arguments were rejected by both lower courts and ultimately by the Supreme Court itself. The court held that when Congress passed laws granting citizenship to certain Native Americans it also subjected them to all obligations of citizens including paying taxes on their personal property.

In the dissenting opinion for Dodge v. United States, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. argued that the government had no right to seize property without providing just compensation, even during times of war or other national emergencies. He contended that the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause was absolute and did not allow for exceptions based on circumstances or public necessity. According to Holmes, if a private citizen's land is taken by the government for public use, they are entitled to fair compensation regardless of whether it was seized in peacetime or wartime. The majority decision allowed such seizures under certain conditions without requiring payment; however, Holmes believed this violated constitutional protections against uncompensated takings and infringed upon individual property rights.