In the case of King v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a defendant was entitled to a new trial after the jury had been discharged without rendering a verdict. The defendant, King, had been charged with a crime and the jury had been deliberating for several days when the court discharged them without a verdict. King argued that he was entitled to a new trial because the jury had not been able to reach a verdict. The Supreme Court held that the defendant was not entitled to a new trial. The Court reasoned that the jury had been discharged without a verdict because the court had determined that further deliberation would be futile. The Court noted that the jury had been deliberating for several days and that the court had determined that further deliberation would not result in a verdict. The Court also noted that the defendant had not been prejudiced by the court's decision to discharge the jury without a verdict. The Court concluded that the defendant was not entitled to a new trial and affirmed the lower court's decision. The Court held that the court had acted within its discretion in discharging the jury without a verdict and that the defendant had not been prejudiced by the court's decision.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in King v. United States, arguing that Congress had exceeded its authority by enacting a law which allowed for the forfeiture of property without due process of law. He argued that this was an unconstitutional deprivation of property and violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee against taking private property for public use without just compensation. Furthermore, he contended that it was not within Congress' power to pass such a law as it would be tantamount to creating new crimes and punishments beyond those enumerated in Article III Section 3 of the Constitution. Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating that if Congress wished to create laws regarding forfeitures they should do so through constitutional amendments rather than passing legislation which violates fundamental rights protected under existing Constitutional provisions.