In the United States v. Stanford case of 1895, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving railroad magnate Leland Stanford and his estate's executors. The federal government sought to recover over $15 million in debt owed by the Central Pacific Railroad Company, which was largely controlled by Stanford before his death. The government argued that as a major shareholder, Stanford’s personal assets should be used to settle this debt after he passed away. However, California law stated that community property (property acquired during marriage) could not be used to pay off debts incurred individually or separately from one's spouse. Since most of Stanfords' wealth was accumulated during his marriage and thus considered community property under California law, it would have been exempt from being seized for payment of Central Pacific Railroad's debts. The Supreme Court upheld this principle and sided with Jane Lathrop Stanford (Stanford’s widow) who had appealed against lower court decisions favoring the U.S Government claim on her late husband’s estate for repayment of corporate debt. This decision underscored states’ rights in determining their own laws regarding marital property versus federal interests.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Stanford, Justice Brewer argued that the government did not have a right to seize private property without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. He contended that this principle should apply even in cases where the land was taken for public use or benefit. Brewer believed that while it is necessary for governments to be able to take private property when required, they must also respect and uphold individual rights and freedoms as enshrined in the Constitution. The majority's decision, he felt, failed on this account by allowing an uncompensated seizure of Mr. Stanford’s lands by arguing its necessity due to railroad construction needs.