United States v. Morant was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a defendant could be convicted of a crime if the evidence presented at trial was obtained through an illegal search and seizure. The Court held that the evidence was admissible and that the defendant could be convicted. The case involved a defendant, Morant, who was charged with receiving stolen goods. The police had conducted a search of Morant's home without a warrant and had seized evidence that was used to convict him. Morant argued that the evidence should be excluded because it was obtained through an illegal search and seizure. The Supreme Court held that the evidence was admissible and that the defendant could be convicted. The Court reasoned that the exclusionary rule, which prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence, was not applicable in this case because the police had acted in good faith and had not acted with the intent to violate Morant's rights. The Court also noted that the exclusionary rule was intended to deter police misconduct, not to punish the police for their mistakes. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the evidence obtained through the illegal search and seizure was admissible and that the defendant could be convicted. The Court reasoned that the exclusionary rule was not applicable in this case because the police had acted in good faith and had not acted with the intent to violate Morant's rights.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in United States v. Morant, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that Congress had not intended to limit its power of taxation by granting exemptions from certain taxes for religious organizations, as this would have been unconstitutional under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. Furthermore, he argued that even if such a limitation did exist, it could only apply to those who were members of an organized religion or sect at the time when they received their exemption; since Morant was not a member at this time, his exemption should remain valid. Finally, Justice Field noted that while there may be some practical difficulties with allowing exemptions for non-members after they become members later on down the line - namely double taxation - these issues can easily be addressed through legislative action rather than judicial interpretation of existing law.