In the Reed et al. v. Allen case of 1931, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state statute that allowed for the sale of land to pay off debts violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The appellants were heirs and devisees of a deceased individual whose property had been sold by an administrator to settle outstanding debts without notifying them or giving them an opportunity to be heard in court before this action took place. They argued that their constitutional right to due process had been infringed upon because they were not given notice or an opportunity for hearing prior to deprivation of their property interest. The Supreme Court ruled against them, stating that while due process generally requires notice and hearing before depriving someone's property interest, there are exceptions when it is impracticable such as in this case where it would have delayed settling estate affairs indefinitely until all potential claimants could be notified and heard from. Therefore, according to the court’s decision, no violation occurred since these circumstances fell within recognized exceptions.

In the dissenting opinion for Reed et al. v. Allen, 1931, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling denying an inheritance claim based on race violated both due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissent emphasized that racial discrimination in inheritance laws is unconstitutional as it denies individuals their property rights solely based on their race. It further criticized the majority's reliance on historical practices and state sovereignty arguments to justify such discriminatory laws, arguing these are irrelevant when constitutional rights are at stake. The dissent also pointed out inconsistencies in how courts have applied similar principles in other cases involving racial discrimination, suggesting a lack of clear legal standards or precedents guiding such decisions.