In United States v. Van Auken, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a defendant could be convicted of a crime if the evidence presented at trial was obtained through an illegal search and seizure. The defendant, Van Auken, was charged with receiving stolen goods, and the evidence used to convict him was obtained through a search of his home without a warrant. The Supreme Court held that the evidence obtained through the illegal search and seizure was admissible in court. The Court reasoned that the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, does not provide a remedy for the defendant in this case. The Court noted that the exclusionary rule, which prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in court, does not apply to criminal proceedings. The Court also noted that the exclusionary rule is a judicially created remedy, and that the Court has the power to decide when it should be applied. The Court concluded that the exclusionary rule should not be applied in this case, and that the evidence obtained through the illegal search and seizure was admissible in court. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the evidence obtained through the illegal search and seizure was admissible in court, and that the exclusionary rule did not apply in this case. The Court reasoned that the exclusionary rule is a judicially created remedy, and that the Court has the power to decide when it should be applied.

In United States v. Van Auken, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal court had jurisdiction over an action brought by the United States against a defendant for violating certain provisions of the Internal Revenue Act. The majority opinion held that it did not have jurisdiction because there were no allegations in the complaint that would bring this case within its purview. Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that Congress intended to give federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over all cases arising under any law providing for internal revenue, regardless of what is alleged in the complaint. He further noted that if Congress wanted to limit such jurisdiction only when certain facts are alleged, then they should have made those limitations clear in their legislation instead of leaving it up to judicial interpretation. In conclusion, he believed that since Congress gave no indication otherwise, federal courts should be given broad authority over these types of cases and thus should have been allowed to hear this one as well.