Mackin & Another v. United States was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether the United States government had the right to seize a vessel for violating the revenue laws of the United States. The case was brought by the owners of the vessel, Mackin & Another, who argued that the seizure was unconstitutional and violated their rights under the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the seizure was constitutional and did not violate the Fifth Amendment. The Court reasoned that the government had the right to seize the vessel in order to enforce the revenue laws of the United States. The Court also held that the seizure was not a taking of private property without just compensation, as the vessel was not taken for public use. The Court's decision in this case established that the government has the right to seize vessels for violating the revenue laws of the United States. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving the seizure of vessels for violating the revenue laws of the United States.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Mackin & Another v. United States, arguing that the majority's decision was inconsistent with prior Supreme Court decisions and failed to recognize a fundamental principle of law. He argued that Congress had no authority to pass laws which would interfere with contracts between individuals or states unless it was expressly granted by the Constitution. Furthermore, he argued that even if such power did exist, it could not be used for purposes other than those specified in the Constitution without violating due process of law as guaranteed by both state and federal constitutions. Justice Field concluded his dissent by noting that while Congress may have been justified in passing legislation intended to protect public health and safety, this particular statute went beyond its constitutional powers because it interfered with private contractual rights without any clear justification for doing so.