In the 1899 case of Hays v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning taxation and property rights. The plaintiff, Hays, was an heir to a large estate that included bonds from the city of New Orleans. After his inheritance, he moved to France but continued receiving income from these bonds in America. The U.S government taxed this income as if it were generated domestically by a resident citizen; however, Hays argued that since he lived abroad and wasn't benefiting directly from any American public services or infrastructure funded by taxes, he shouldn't be subject to them. The Supreme Court disagreed with Hays' argument stating that because the source of his income (the bonds) originated within U.S borders and were protected under its laws - regardless of where he resided - they could indeed be taxed accordingly by the federal government without violating any constitutional principles regarding property rights or international law norms about jurisdiction over foreign nationals' assets held overseas.

In the dissenting opinion for Hays v. United States, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the defendant. The dissenting justices believed that any evidence obtained in such a manner should be deemed inadmissible in court, regardless of its relevance or importance to the case at hand. They contended that by allowing this type of evidence to be used against defendants, it would set a dangerous precedent where law enforcement could potentially abuse their power with impunity knowing they can violate citizens' constitutional rights without consequence. This view held upholding individual liberties as paramount over securing convictions and emphasized strict adherence to constitutional protections even when inconvenient for prosecution.