In the United States v. Dow case of 1957, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government, allowing it to use aerial photography as evidence in a lawsuit against Dow Chemical Company for violating environmental laws. The court held that taking aerial photographs from public airspace did not constitute an illegal search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment because there was no physical intrusion into private property. The decision clarified that individuals and businesses could not reasonably expect privacy for activities visible from public airspace above their properties.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Dow, it was argued that the government should not be allowed to seize private property without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. The dissenting justices believed that when a government action significantly impairs the value of property, it constitutes a taking even if there is no physical invasion or appropriation. They disagreed with majority’s view which held that only physical intrusion by government constituted as 'taking'. In this case, they contended that although there was no direct governmental occupation of land owned by Dow Chemical Company, restrictions imposed on its use due to proximity to an Air Force bombing range had severely diminished its value and thus amounted to a de facto seizure. Therefore, in their view, Dow should have been entitled to compensation from the federal government.