In the 1907 case of Vail v. Territory of Arizona, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a territorial law in Arizona that allowed for the taxation of mortgages was constitutional. The plaintiff, Vail, argued that this tax constituted double taxation as both property and its mortgage were being taxed separately which he claimed violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. However, after careful consideration, the court ruled against him stating that there is no constitutional prohibition on double taxation and thus upheld Arizona’s right to levy taxes on both real estate properties and their corresponding mortgages independently from each other.

In the dissenting opinion for Vail v. Territory of Arizona, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a territorial law allowing for the removal of public officials without trial or hearing violated fundamental principles of justice and due process. The dissenting justices contended that such a law was unconstitutional as it denied individuals their right to defend themselves against accusations before being removed from office. They believed this ruling set a dangerous precedent by enabling arbitrary and potentially politically motivated dismissals, undermining democratic governance and individual rights. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of 'due process,' arguing that it should encompass not just procedural fairness but also substantive protections against unjust laws.