In the 1945 case of Levers v. Anderson, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over alcohol taxation and property rights. The administrator of an estate, Levers, sued Anderson, a district supervisor for the Alcohol Tax Unit after he seized 125 barrels of whiskey from a distillery owned by the deceased person whose estate was being administered by Levers. The seizure was made on grounds that taxes were owed on this liquor under federal law. However, Levers argued that as per Kentucky state law (wherein the distillery was located), these barrels should be considered part of his inventory and thus exempted from such tax obligations until sold or used in business operations. The court ruled in favor of Anderson stating that federal laws regarding alcohol taxation superseded any conflicting state laws; hence it did not matter if Kentucky's law would have otherwise protected those assets from seizure due to unpaid taxes. This ruling reinforced supremacy clause which states Federal Law takes precedence over State Law when there is conflict between them.

In the dissenting opinion for Levers v. Anderson, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a warrantless search and seizure of alcohol on private property violated Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The dissenting justices contended that there were no exigent circumstances justifying such an intrusion without a warrant, as required by law. They believed this ruling set a dangerous precedent which could potentially erode citizens' constitutional rights in future cases involving similar issues. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "plain view" doctrine; arguing instead that officers should not be allowed to enter private property without proper legal authority even if illegal activity is visible from outside the premises. In their view, upholding such actions would undermine fundamental principles of privacy and liberty enshrined in American jurisprudence.