The United States v. Carmack case in 1946 revolved around the interpretation of a federal statute concerning compensation for landowners when their property is taken over by the government under eminent domain. The defendant, Mr. Carmack, was compensated $4,500 for his land which was seized to expand a post office site in Tennessee but he argued that he should be paid more based on an appraisal value of $7,500 and sued for additional compensation. The Supreme Court ruled against him stating that just compensation as required by the Fifth Amendment refers to fair market value at the time of taking possession and not any subsequent appraised values or potential future uses of said property. Therefore, it held that Mr.Carmack had received adequate payment according to law.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Carmack, Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with both legislative intent and previous court decisions. He believed that Congress intended to protect landowners from having their property taken without just compensation under eminent domain laws. The majority's interpretation of these laws would allow the government to avoid paying full compensation by transferring liability to a third party who had no part in causing damage or loss of value to the property owner’s land. This, he felt, was contrary to principles of fairness and justice embodied in Fifth Amendment protections against taking private property without due process and fair compensation. Furthermore, he pointed out inconsistencies between this ruling and earlier Supreme Court cases which held that when government takes possession of a citizen’s land for public use it becomes liable for all damages resulting therefrom even if caused by an independent contractor employed by government.