The Confiscation Cases was a series of cases heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1869. The cases involved the confiscation of property by the Union Army during the Civil War. The Court was asked to decide whether the confiscation of property was constitutional. The Court held that the confiscation of property was constitutional under the war powers of the United States. The Court reasoned that the confiscation of property was necessary to protect the Union and to prevent the Confederate forces from using the property to further their cause. The Court also held that the confiscation of property was not a violation of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits the taking of private property for public use without just compensation. The Court also held that the confiscation of property was not a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that the confiscation of property was a legitimate exercise of the war powers of the United States and that the confiscation was necessary to protect the Union. The Confiscation Cases established the principle that the confiscation of property during wartime is constitutional under the war powers of the United States. The Court's decision in the Confiscation Cases has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving the confiscation of property during wartime.

In the Confiscation Cases, a majority of justices on the Supreme Court held that Congress had no power to confiscate property belonging to citizens of states in rebellion against the Union during the Civil War. The dissenting opinion argued that such an action was necessary and within Congress' powers under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution which grants it authority "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution" its other enumerated powers. Furthermore, they argued that since secession was illegal according to established precedent set by Chief Justice Marshall in 1869's Texas v White decision, then any acts taken by those who seceded were also unlawful and could therefore be subject to seizure or forfeiture as punishment. Finally, they asserted that if Congress did not have this power then it would leave them powerless when faced with similar situations in future conflicts.