In United States v. Diekelman, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a federal statute that prohibited the sale of liquor within four miles of a military post was constitutional. The defendant, Diekelman, had been convicted of selling liquor within four miles of a military post in violation of the statute. The Court held that the statute was constitutional. The Court reasoned that Congress had the power to pass laws to protect the military from the effects of alcohol, and that the statute was a reasonable exercise of that power. The Court also noted that the statute was not an unreasonable restriction on the defendant's right to sell liquor, as it only applied to a limited area. The Court concluded that the statute was a valid exercise of Congress' power to protect the military, and that the defendant's conviction should be upheld.

In United States v. Diekelman, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal statute that authorized the government to take possession of and use property for public purposes without compensation violated the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. The majority opinion held that it did not violate this clause because Congress had acted within its constitutional authority in passing such a law. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that taking private property for public use without just compensation constituted an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment and should be prohibited by law. He argued further that if Congress could pass laws authorizing takings of private property without providing just compensation, then there would be no limit on what kind of legislation they could pass in order to benefit themselves or their constituents at the expense of individual citizens' rights to own and enjoy their own possessions free from governmental interference or control.