Minturn 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 take possession of a vessel that had been abandoned by its owner. The case arose when the United States government seized a vessel owned by the Minturn family, claiming that it had been abandoned. The Minturns argued that the vessel had not been abandoned, and that the government had no right to take possession of it. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the Minturns, ruling that the government had no right to take possession of the vessel without first obtaining a court order. The Court held that the government could not take possession of a vessel without first obtaining a court order, and that the Minturns had the right to challenge the government's seizure of the vessel. The Court also held that the government had to prove that the vessel had been abandoned before it could take possession of it. In its ruling, the Supreme Court established the principle that the government cannot take possession of a vessel without first obtaining a court order, and that the owner of the vessel has the right to challenge the government's seizure. This ruling has been cited in numerous cases since, and has become an important part of the law governing the seizure of vessels by the government.

In Minturn v. United States, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not a vessel that had been seized by the government for violating customs laws could be sold without first obtaining a court order. The majority opinion held that such vessels may be sold without an order from the courts, as long as it is done in accordance with existing statutes and regulations. Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that Congress did not intend to allow seizures of property without judicial review; secondly, he asserted that allowing such sales would violate due process rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. He concluded his dissent by stating "the power thus assumed [by executive officers] is one which has no warrant in any act of congress." In other words, Justice Field believed there was no legal basis for allowing these seizures and sales to take place outside of judicial oversight.