In the case of Van Oster v. Kansas in 1926, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a state has the right to seize and sell vehicles used for illegal transportation of liquor during Prohibition. The court held that such action did not violate due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as claimed by Van Oster, who was challenging Kansas's seizure and sale of his car after he had been caught using it to transport alcohol illegally. The court reasoned that since states have broad police powers to regulate public health, safety, morals or welfare; they could lawfully confiscate property used in violation of their laws without compensating owners. This decision upheld states' authority to enforce Prohibition laws through punitive measures like asset forfeiture.

In the dissenting opinion for Van Oster v. Kansas, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. argued that the state of Kansas had not violated due process by seizing and selling a car used in illegal liquor trafficking without providing compensation to its owner. He contended that while the Constitution protects property rights, it does not protect those who use their property to break the law or harm society. Therefore, he believed that when a person uses their property in such a manner, they forfeit any constitutional protections over it. This forfeiture allows states like Kansas to seize and sell such properties as part of their police powers aimed at maintaining public order and safety without violating due process requirements under Fourteenth Amendment.