Street v. United States was a Supreme Court case decided in 1971. The case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of a federal statute that prohibited the possession of firearms by convicted felons. The petitioner, James Street, was a convicted felon who had been convicted of a felony in the state of California. He was subsequently charged with violating the federal statute by possessing a firearm. Street argued that the federal statute was unconstitutional because it violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The Supreme Court, however, rejected Street's argument and held that the federal statute was constitutional. The Court reasoned that the Second Amendment did not protect the right of felons to possess firearms, and that the federal statute was a reasonable exercise of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. The Court also noted that the federal statute was necessary to protect public safety, and that the government had a legitimate interest in preventing felons from possessing firearms. The Court concluded that the federal statute was a valid exercise of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce, and that it did not violate the Second Amendment.

In the dissenting opinion of Street v. United States, Justice Douglas argued that the majority’s decision to uphold a conviction for possession of stolen mail was wrongfully decided and violated an individual’s right to due process under the Fifth Amendment. He believed that since there was no evidence presented in court as to how or when Street came into possession of the stolen mail, his conviction should be overturned because it is impossible for him to defend himself against such charges without any proof being provided by prosecutors. Furthermore, he argued that if someone can be convicted based on mere suspicion then this would set a dangerous precedent which could lead individuals being charged with crimes they did not commit simply because they were suspected of doing so without any real proof backing up those suspicions. As such, Justice Douglas concluded that Street's conviction should have been reversed and remanded back down for further proceedings in order to ensure his rights were properly protected under law.