In the case of Security Savings Bank v. State of California (1923), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state, upholding a California law that allowed for unclaimed property or "escheat" to be transferred to the state after a certain period. The bank had argued that this violated their due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as it did not provide adequate notice and opportunity for hearing before depriving them of their property. However, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., writing for majority, stated that while due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before deprivation occurs, these requirements can sometimes be met by laws themselves when they are sufficiently clear and give ample time for those affected to safeguard their interests. In this case, he found that California's escheat law was reasonable because it provided sufficient warning through its publication requirement and gave banks plenty of time (20 years) before transferring unclaimed funds to the state.

In the dissenting opinion for Security Savings Bank v. State of California, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a California law that allowed the state to sell tax-defaulted property without providing notice to mortgage lienholders. He argued that this violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by depriving these lienholders of their property interests without proper notification or opportunity for hearing. The justice contended that while states have broad power in taxing and selling properties for unpaid taxes, they must still respect constitutional protections regarding private property rights. In his view, it was not sufficient that potential claimants could learn about such sales through public records; instead, he believed direct notice should be required before any sale affecting their interests took place.