United States v. Forty-Three Gallons of Whiskey is a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether the government could seize and destroy property without due process of law. The case involved the seizure of forty-three gallons of whiskey by the United States government from a distillery in Kentucky. The distillery argued that the seizure was unconstitutional because it violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process of law. The Supreme Court held that the seizure was constitutional because the government had a legitimate interest in preventing the sale of alcohol in violation of the law. The Court reasoned that the government had a right to protect the public from the dangers of alcohol and that the seizure was necessary to prevent the sale of the whiskey. The Court also noted that the distillery had not been given notice of the seizure or an opportunity to be heard before the seizure occurred. The Court's decision established that the government could seize and destroy property without due process of law if it had a legitimate interest in doing so. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, including cases involving the seizure of drugs and other contraband.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in United States v. Forty-Three Gallons of Whiskey, arguing that Congress had no authority to impose a tax on distilled spirits for revenue purposes without apportionment among the states according to population. He argued that such taxation was unconstitutional because it violated Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution which requires taxes be apportioned among the states based on their respective populations. Furthermore, he argued that Congress could not use its power under Article I, Section 8 to regulate commerce as an excuse for imposing this type of unapportioned tax since it would amount to an exercise of taxing powers beyond those granted by the Constitution and thus violate state sovereignty. As such, Justice Field concluded that any attempt by Congress to impose a direct tax upon distilled spirits without regard for population was unconstitutional and should be struck down accordingly.