In the 1906 case of Taylor v. Burns, the United States Supreme Court examined whether a New Jersey statute that allowed for the recovery of double damages from railroad companies in cases where livestock was killed due to negligence on part of the company was constitutional. The plaintiff, Taylor, had sued under this law after his horse was killed by a train operated by defendant Burns' company. The lower court ruled in favor of Taylor and awarded him double damages as per state law. However, upon appeal to the Supreme Court it was determined that while states have power to regulate railroads within their borders and can impose penalties for non-compliance with regulations or laws designed to promote public safety; they cannot enact legislation which imposes punitive measures beyond actual damage suffered without providing an opportunity for hearing or trial - such would be contrary to principles of due process enshrined in Fourteenth Amendment. The ruling thus found New Jersey's statute unconstitutional because it imposed automatic double liability without allowing railroad companies any chance at defense or mitigation before imposition of penalty. Consequently, judgment rendered against Burns' company based on said statute was reversed.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Taylor v. Burns argued that the majority's decision to uphold a law allowing for involuntary commitment and treatment of individuals deemed "insane" was an overreach of government power, infringing upon individual liberties. The dissent emphasized that such laws could be easily abused, leading to wrongful confinement based on subjective judgments about mental health. It also raised concerns about due process rights being violated when people are committed without sufficient evidence or opportunity to defend themselves in court. Furthermore, it questioned whether forced treatment is truly beneficial for those with mental illnesses or if it merely serves as a convenient way for society to remove these individuals from public view. Ultimately, the dissent called for greater scrutiny and safeguards against potential abuses within this system.