In the case of Miller v. United States in 1913, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning property rights and eminent domain. The government had taken land owned by Miller for public use without providing just compensation as required by the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. The court held that while it was within the government's power to take private property for public use, they were constitutionally obligated to provide fair compensation to those from whom such properties were taken. In this particular case, however, there was disagreement over what constituted "just" compensation; specifically whether or not it should include potential future profits lost due to business interruption caused by seizure of said properties. Ultimately, the court decided against including potential future profits in their calculation of just compensation because these are speculative and uncertain.

In the dissenting opinion for Miller v. United States, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to overturn a lower court ruling that upheld a tax on foreign-built yachts. He argued that there was no constitutional basis for exempting personal property brought into the country from abroad from taxation. According to him, while it is true that Congress cannot impose duties intended to protect domestic industries under its power of taxation, this does not mean all taxes on imported goods are unconstitutional if they have some protective effect. The Constitution only forbids impositions aimed at protectionism and not those incidental or secondary effects resulting from exercising other powers like general revenue raising through taxation. Therefore, he believed the yacht tax should be considered valid as it was part of an overall scheme by Congress to raise revenues rather than specifically designed to protect American shipbuilders.