In Mathews v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal statute that imposed a fine for the violation of a federal law was constitutional. The statute in question provided that any person who violated a federal law would be subject to a fine of up to $500. The petitioner argued that the statute was unconstitutional because it violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the statute was constitutional. The Court reasoned that the statute was a valid exercise of Congress’s power to impose fines and penalties for violations of federal law. The Court noted that the statute provided adequate notice of the penalty and that the penalty was not so excessive as to be unconstitutional. The Court also noted that the statute was not so vague as to be unconstitutional. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the statute was constitutional and that the petitioner was subject to the fine imposed by the statute.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Matthews v. United States, arguing that Congress had exceeded its constitutional authority by enacting a law which allowed for the seizure of property without due process of law. He argued that this was an unconstitutional exercise of power because it deprived individuals of their property without any opportunity to be heard or defend themselves against such action. Furthermore, he argued that Congress had no right to pass laws which would allow for such seizures as they were not authorized by either the Constitution or any other statute passed by Congress. Justice Field concluded his dissent with a warning about what could happen if similar laws were enacted in future cases: “The result will be oppression and injustice, and should never be sanctioned under our form of government."