In the case of United States v. One Ford Coupe Automobile, 1926, the Supreme Court ruled on whether a vehicle used to transport illegal alcohol during Prohibition could be seized by the government without violating due process rights. The owner of the car argued that he was not aware his vehicle was being used for such purposes and thus its seizure constituted an unfair punishment. However, under existing law at that time (the National Prohibition Act), any vehicle involved in transporting illegal liquor could be confiscated regardless of owner knowledge or consent. The court upheld this provision as constitutional, ruling against the car's owner and allowing for its forfeiture to proceed. The decision affirmed that property which is implicated in a crime can indeed be forfeited even if its owners are unaware or uninvolved in said criminal activity - essentially holding objects themselves accountable rather than their owners per se.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. One Ford Coupe Automobile, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. argued that the majority's decision to seize and forfeit an automobile used in transporting illegal liquor was unjust because it punished the innocent owner of the vehicle rather than those who were actually guilty of committing a crime. He contended that while forfeiture laws may have been appropriate during times when ships were commonly used for smuggling, they did not make sense in modern contexts where vehicles could be easily borrowed or rented without knowledge of their intended use. Furthermore, he pointed out that such laws disproportionately affected lower-income individuals who couldn't afford to lose their property and had no means to prevent its misuse by others. Therefore, he believed this ruling violated principles of fairness and justice.