In the United States v. Allen case of 1895, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in Kansas. The plaintiff, the U.S government, claimed that defendant John Allen had unlawfully taken possession of certain lands which were part of an Indian reservation and thus belonged to them under federal law. However, Allen argued that he had legally acquired these lands through preemption rights - a legal principle allowing settlers on public land to purchase it before others could do so. The court sided with the U.S government stating that preemption laws did not apply to Indian reservations unless explicitly stated by Congress. Therefore, any title or claim made by settlers like Allen was invalid as they never had lawful possession in the first place.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Allen, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on distilled spirits was unconstitutional. He contended that this tax violated the Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy and self-incrimination because it punished distillers twice: once through criminal prosecution and again through taxation. Furthermore, he asserted that requiring distillers to keep records of their activities amounted to forced self-incrimination as these records could be used in criminal prosecutions against them. Justice Brewer also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "due process," arguing instead that due process should protect individuals from being subjected to both penalties and taxes for the same offense.