In the 1904 case of Rooney v. North Dakota, the United States Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state law that allowed for an individual's property to be seized and sold without notice or opportunity for hearing violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiff, Rooney, had his property confiscated by North Dakota authorities because he failed to pay taxes on it. He argued that this action was unconstitutional as he did not receive any prior notification or chance to contest it in court before his property was taken away from him. The Supreme Court ruled against Rooney, upholding the constitutionality of North Dakota's tax laws. The court reasoned that since these laws were public record and easily accessible to all citizens including Mr.Rooney himself; therefore they served as sufficient notice about potential consequences of non-payment of taxes such as seizure and sale of one’s properties . Additionally, they stated there is no constitutional requirement for additional personal notifications or hearings before taking such actions when dealing with matters related to unpaid taxes.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Rooney v. North Dakota argued that the state law, which allowed for a lien on harvested crops to secure payment for threshing, was unconstitutional as it violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissent emphasized that this law created an unjust situation where a farmer could lose his entire crop without any prior notice or opportunity to be heard before a court. It also pointed out that such laws were unique and not common practice across states, suggesting they were not rooted in established legal principles. Furthermore, it contended that even if there was some justification for these liens based on public policy considerations (like ensuring farmers paid their debts), these reasons did not outweigh constitutional protections against deprivation of property without due process of law.