In the case of MacArthur Brothers Company v. United States (1921), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the U.S. government, upholding its right to seize and sell goods imported by a company that had failed to pay customs duties on them. The MacArthur Brothers Company had argued that it was not liable for these duties because they were imposed after their merchandise arrived in Manila, Philippines - then an American territory - but before it was officially entered at the customhouse there. However, Justice Mahlon Pitney wrote for a unanimous court that under both statutory law and longstanding practice, liability for import duties attaches when goods reach their port of destination within U.S jurisdiction; thus confirming that such charges are due upon arrival rather than entry into commerce.

In the dissenting opinion for MacArthur Brothers Company v. United States, Justice McReynolds argued that the government had no right to seize property without providing just compensation. He believed that the majority's decision violated fundamental principles of justice and fairness by allowing a governmental entity to take private property under eminent domain laws without paying fair market value for it. Furthermore, he contended that this ruling undermined constitutional protections against unlawful seizures and infringements on private property rights. In his view, if a government can arbitrarily decide what constitutes "just compensation," then these protections become meaningless. Thus, he dissented from the majority's opinion because he felt it was an overreach of governmental power at the expense of individual rights.