In the case of Paulussen v. Herion (1985), the United States Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a Minnesota law that allowed for garnishment of wages without prior notice or hearing violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The petitioner, Paulussen, argued that his employer's compliance with an order from respondent Herion to withhold and pay over part of his salary constituted state action which deprived him of property without due process. However, the court held that there was no constitutional violation because there were adequate post-deprivation remedies available in this situation such as challenging the validity of garnishment proceedings in state courts after they had occurred. Therefore, it concluded that pre-garnishment notice and hearing were not constitutionally required.

The dissenting opinion in the Paulussen v. Herion case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found Mr. Paulussen guilty of fraud, was incorrect because it failed to consider important aspects of the case. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant issues with how evidence was collected and presented during trial, arguing that these procedural errors could have potentially influenced the jury's verdict. They also disagreed with how certain laws and legal principles were interpreted by both the trial court and their fellow Supreme Court Justices in this case; they felt these interpretations unfairly favored prosecution while ignoring or downplaying defense arguments. Furthermore, they expressed concerns about potential violations of Mr. Paulussen’s constitutional rights throughout his arrest and trial process.