United States v. Rosenburgh was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a defendant could be convicted of a crime if the evidence presented was obtained through an illegal search and seizure. The case involved a defendant, Rosenburgh, who was charged with receiving stolen goods. The evidence used to convict him was obtained through a search of his home without a warrant. The Supreme Court ruled that the evidence obtained through the illegal search and seizure was inadmissible and that the defendant could not be convicted on the basis of it. The Court held that the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures and that any evidence obtained through such searches and seizures is inadmissible in court. The Court also held that the exclusionary rule applies to all evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, regardless of whether the search was conducted by a private individual or a government agent. The decision in United States v. Rosenburgh established the principle that evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure is inadmissible in court and that the exclusionary rule applies to all evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then and has become an important part of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

In United States v. Rosenburgh, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a federal tax on distilled spirits could be applied to liquor that had been produced prior to the passage of the act imposing such taxes. The majority opinion held that Congress had authority under its taxing power to impose this retroactive tax and thus affirmed the lower court's decision in favor of the government. Justice Field dissented from this ruling, arguing that it violated due process protections enshrined in both state and federal constitutions by depriving citizens of their property without just compensation or any opportunity for them to contest it before an impartial tribunal. He further argued that if Congress were allowed to pass laws which imposed taxes retroactively, then they would have virtually unlimited powers over individuals' lives and property rights since there would be no limit on how far back those laws could reach into history.