In the 1906 case of Kann v. King, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Kann, was an heir to a large estate left by his deceased uncle who had no direct descendants. However, under California law at that time, if there were no direct heirs to an estate then it would revert back to the state (escheat). Kann argued that this law violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights as he believed he was being deprived of his property without due process of law. The court ruled in favor of King (representing the State), upholding California's escheat laws and stating they did not violate any constitutional provisions or federal statutes regarding inheritance or property rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Kann v. King, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling dismissing an indictment against two men accused of using mail fraud to defraud investors was incorrect. He contended that the defendants had indeed used deceitful tactics in their correspondence with potential investors and thus violated federal law prohibiting such actions. The justice believed that by not holding these individuals accountable, it would set a dangerous precedent allowing others to exploit similar loopholes in order to commit fraudulent acts without fear of punishment under federal law. Furthermore, he expressed concern over how this could potentially undermine public trust and confidence in investment practices if left unchecked.