In the case of Wolf et al. v. Weinstein et al., 1962, the Supreme Court examined whether a New York law that allowed creditors to seize debtors' assets without prior notice or hearing violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The plaintiffs were two married couples who had their bank accounts frozen by their creditors under this law, and they argued that it was unconstitutional because it deprived them of property without due process of law. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this argument and upheld the constitutionality of New York's law in a 5-4 decision. The majority opinion held that while procedural due process generally requires notice and an opportunity for hearing before deprivation of life, liberty or property can occur, there are exceptions when prompt action is necessary to secure important governmental or general public interests.

In the dissenting opinion for Wolf et al. v. Weinstein et al., Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to allow a bankruptcy referee to adjudicate in a summary proceeding was incorrect and violated traditional principles of equity jurisdiction. He contended that such proceedings should be limited to cases where it is clear that the property in question belongs entirely or predominantly to the bankrupt estate, which he did not believe was true in this case. Instead, he felt there were substantial arguments suggesting otherwise and thus believed these matters should have been resolved through plenary suits rather than summary proceedings by a bankruptcy referee. Furthermore, Justice Harlan expressed concern over potential due process violations stemming from allowing referees with potentially less legal expertise than judges to make significant decisions about property rights without providing parties an opportunity for trial by jury.