In the Matthews v. United States case of 1895, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning bankruptcy and property rights. The appellant, Mr. Matthews, had purchased land from a man who later declared bankruptcy before he could fully pay off his mortgage to another party (the appellee). When the bankrupt individual's assets were distributed among his creditors, it was determined that there wasn't enough money to cover all debts - including what was owed for the land sold to Matthews. Consequently, this led to an attempt by other creditors and trustees involved in the bankruptcy process to reclaim ownership of said property. Matthews appealed against this decision arguing that as he had bought and paid for part of this land prior to its previous owner declaring bankruptcy; therefore he should be allowed full possession without having any obligation towards paying off remaining debt associated with it. The Supreme Court disagreed with Matthew’s argument stating that under federal law at that time (Bankruptcy Act), when someone declares bankruptcy their entire estate becomes liable for distribution amongst their creditors regardless if some parts have been sold or not. Therefore they upheld lower court's ruling allowing trustees/creditors right over repossessing disputed lands until all outstanding debts are cleared.

In the dissenting opinion for Matthews v. United States, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the defendant. He contended that any evidence procured in such a manner should be deemed inadmissible in court as it was acquired unlawfully. Furthermore, he stressed that allowing this kind of evidence could potentially encourage law enforcement officers to disregard constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. In his view, upholding convictions based on illegally obtained evidence would undermine citizens' trust in law enforcement agencies and erode their civil liberties over time.