In the 1948 case of Stainback v. Mo Hock Ke Lok Po, an eleemosynary corporation (a type of non-profit organization), the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in Hawaii. The Governor and other officials from the Territory of Hawaii had attempted to seize lands owned by Mo Hock Ke Lok Po under eminent domain laws for public use as part of a housing project. However, Mo Hock Ke Lok Po argued that this was unconstitutional because it violated their Fifth Amendment rights which protect against seizure without just compensation. The Supreme Court sided with Mo Hock Ke Lok Po, ruling that while governments do have powers to take private property for public use under certain conditions, they must provide fair compensation and cannot violate constitutional rights in doing so.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Stainback v. Mo Hock Ke Lok Po, Justice Frankfurter disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold Hawaii's Act 73, which dissolved a charitable corporation and transferred its assets to another organization. He argued that this act violated due process rights under the Fifth Amendment by depriving an entity of its property without just compensation. Furthermore, he contended that it was not within Congress' power to authorize such legislation as it did not serve any public purpose but rather interfered with private contractual relationships. The justice also criticized his colleagues for failing to adequately consider whether Act 73 constituted a bill of attainder or ex post facto law, both prohibited by Article I Section 9 of Constitution.