The Fuentes v. Shevin case in 1971 revolved around the constitutionality of replevin, a legal mechanism allowing creditors to seize goods from debtors without prior notice or hearing. Margarita Fuentes had purchased household goods on installment but failed to keep up with payments, leading Firestone Tire and Rubber Company and Walker-Thomas Furniture Co., through Florida's prejudgment replevin statutes, to seize her items. The Supreme Court ruled that these seizures violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as they were carried out without affording prior notice and opportunity for a hearing. The court held that individuals must be given an opportunity for a fair hearing before their possessions are taken away by state action under such laws.

In the dissenting opinion for Fuentes v. Shevin, Justice Black and Justice Powell argued that the majority's decision to invalidate replevin laws was an overreach of judicial power. They contended that these laws had a long history in English common law and were widely accepted by American courts at both state and federal levels. The justices believed that it was not within their purview to question the wisdom or fairness of such established legal procedures unless they clearly violated constitutional rights, which they did not believe was evident in this case. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative impacts on commercial transactions if creditors could no longer rely on replevin laws to recover property when debtors defaulted on payments.