In the case of Grayson et al. v. Harris et al., 1928, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state law that allowed for the seizure and sale of property to satisfy a tax lien violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment if no notice was given to nonresident owners. The plaintiffs were nonresidents who owned land in Florida; their properties were seized and sold by local authorities without any prior notification because they had failed to pay taxes on them. They argued this action constituted deprivation of property without due process of law as stipulated in the Fourteenth Amendment. The court ruled against them, stating that it is not always necessary for personal notice to be given before seizing someone's property over unpaid taxes - especially when such individuals are non-residents or absent from jurisdiction at time of proceedings. It held that an advertisement published in newspapers sufficed as adequate public notice under these circumstances since it would be impractical and almost impossible for government officials to track down every individual taxpayer personally.

In the dissenting opinion for Grayson et al. v. Harris et al., Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting interracial marriage was fundamentally flawed and inconsistent with constitutional principles of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. He contended that such laws were inherently discriminatory, serving no legitimate purpose other than to perpetuate racial prejudice and inequality. Moreover, he rejected the notion that states had an inherent power to regulate marriage in ways that violated individual rights or fundamental fairness. In his view, any law based on race should be subject to strict scrutiny - meaning it must serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to achieve its goal - which this law clearly did not meet.