In the 1890 Supreme Court case Solomons v. United States, the court examined whether a law passed by Congress in 1884 that imposed taxes on distilled spirits was constitutional. The plaintiff, Solomons, argued that this tax violated his Fifth Amendment rights because it was an illegal seizure of property without due process of law and also constituted double jeopardy since he had already been fined for not paying these taxes. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with Solomons' arguments and upheld the constitutionality of the tax law. They ruled that taxation is not considered a form of punishment but rather a means to support government operations; therefore it does not fall under protections against double jeopardy or constitute an unlawful taking without due process.

The dissenting opinion in Solomons v. United States argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction for conspiracy to defraud the government was incorrect because it failed to consider whether there was sufficient evidence of an agreement between the defendants, which is necessary for a conspiracy charge. The dissent believed that while some of the defendants may have knowingly participated in fraudulent activities, others were merely following orders or performing routine tasks without knowledge of any illicit scheme. Therefore, they should not be held equally culpacious as those who masterminded and profited from the fraud. Furthermore, it contended that even if all parties involved knew about and contributed to these activities, this still would not constitute a criminal conspiracy unless there was proof they had agreed together on this course of action with intent to defraud.