In the United States v. Russell case of 1920, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning property rights and taxation. The defendant, William W. Russell, was a landowner in Washington state who had given timber-cutting rights to another party for an agreed-upon sum of money. However, he did not receive payment until after the timber had been cut and sold by that party. The government argued that this income should be taxed under federal law as it was profit gained from property use during 1913. Russell disagreed with this interpretation and refused to pay tax on these grounds; his argument being that since he didn't have control over or benefit from the sale of timber (as it wasn't him selling), he shouldn't be liable for tax based on its profits. The Supreme Court sided with the government's view in their decision stating that regardless of when Russell received payment or how much involvement he had in selling process itself, his agreement allowing others to extract resources from his land constituted taxable income derived from property.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Russell, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., joined by Justice Louis Brandeis, argued that the government should not have been allowed to seize and destroy a large quantity of whiskey without providing compensation to its owner. They contended that this action constituted an unlawful taking under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, which prohibits the government from taking private property for public use without just compensation. The majority had ruled otherwise on grounds that prohibition laws rendered possession of such quantities illegal and therefore subject to seizure without recompense. However, Justices Holmes and Brandeis maintained that even if possession was illegal under Prohibition law at time of seizure, it did not negate owner’s right to due process or fair compensation as per constitutional protections against uncompensated takings.