In the case of Ruckelshaus, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency v. Monsanto Co., 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that when a company submits data to a government agency—in this case, Monsanto submitting pesticide data to the EPA—that information can be disclosed publicly without it constituting a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment. The court held that companies do not have an expectation of privacy or confidentiality for such submissions and therefore are not entitled to compensation if their proprietary information is released by federal agencies. However, in instances where disclosure could lead to substantial competitive harm for businesses who had no choice but submit their data as part of regulatory compliance process - then such disclosures would constitute 'takings' requiring just compensation under Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause.

In the dissenting opinion for Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto, Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's decision failed to adequately protect Monsanto's property rights under the Fifth Amendment. He contended that by allowing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to disclose trade secrets without compensation, it essentially permitted a taking of private property for public use without just compensation - which is in violation of constitutional principles. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s view that Monsanto had voluntarily submitted data and thus waived its right to protection from disclosure; instead asserting that submission was compulsory due to regulatory requirements. Thus, according to him, this did not constitute consent but coercion.