In the 1942 case of Mayo et al. v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that a federal tax on silver bullion did not violate the Fifth Amendment's due process clause or constitute an illegal taking without just compensation. The plaintiffs were owners of mining properties who had been required to sell their silver to the U.S government at prices set by law under a 1934 Act aimed at stabilizing currency during the Great Depression. They argued this constituted an unconstitutional seizure of property because they could have sold it for higher prices on international markets if not for these regulations. However, in its decision, written by Justice Stanley Forman Reed, the court held that Congress has broad powers to regulate commerce and monetary policy and can impose such taxes as long as they are reasonable and serve a legitimate public purpose.

In the dissenting opinion for Mayo et al. v. United States, Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's decision to uphold a federal law requiring fingerprinting and registration of all adult male aliens was an unconstitutional violation of personal liberties. He believed that this requirement amounted to unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment, as it forced individuals to provide evidence against themselves without any suspicion or probable cause of criminal activity. Furthermore, he contended that such broad surveillance measures were not necessary for national security purposes and could lead to widespread discrimination against foreign-born residents based on their nationality or political beliefs rather than any actual threat they posed. In his view, these concerns outweighed any potential benefits in terms of crime prevention or immigration control.