In the case of Johnson et al. v. Star, 1932, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state law that allowed for an individual's property to be sold without their consent in order to pay off debts was constitutional. The appellants were landowners whose properties had been sold by court-appointed receivers as part of proceedings initiated by creditors under a California statute. They argued this violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights because they did not receive due process before being deprived of their property. The Supreme Court disagreed with the appellants and upheld the constitutionality of the California law, ruling that it did not violate due process rights guaranteed under Fourteenth Amendment. The court reasoned that since there was notice and opportunity for hearing before appointment of receiver and sale took place, it constituted sufficient procedural safeguards against arbitrary deprivation of property.

The dissenting opinion in the Johnson et al. v. Star case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a statute allowing for the seizure and destruction of property used in illegal gambling operations was an overreach of government power, infringing upon individual rights protected by due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissent contended that while states have police powers to regulate activities deemed harmful to public welfare, these powers should not extend so far as to permit outright confiscation and destruction without proper judicial proceedings or compensation for loss of property value. They also expressed concern about potential misuse or abuse of such broad authority by law enforcement officials who might act arbitrarily or capriciously in carrying out seizures and demolitions based on mere suspicion rather than solid evidence of illicit activity.