In committing injustice, government argues that money isn't property

In economic terms, money isn't property. It's a denomination of past
labor and earnings paid to a business's capital until there is a purchase
of property. It's for convenience in economies in which the vast
majority of economic exchanges do not involve barter.

But this isn't a legal argument, till now.

The government fined a business $50,000 for a labor law violation. An
administrative hearing was held, but the argument is that the
administrative law judge wasn't impartial as an employee of the
enforcement department of the agency.

The business demanded due process, a trial in actual federal district court.

The government presented these arguments that he has no right to due
process:

(1) the government creates money, so you can't own it (fiat currency);

(2) the government can tax your money, so you don't own it; and

(3) the Constitution allows the government to spend money for the
"general welfare."

I'd like to see a pickpocket or a fraudster make that argument at his
criminal trial.

The government's arguments cite the Legal Tender Cases (I am aware of
the outcome but not the arguments). Debtors could not demand specie or
hard currency to repay debts. They were required to accept fiat
currency.

Institute for Justice pointed to plenty of other Supreme Court opinions
in which money is property and therefore the due process clause applies.

https://reason.com/2025/01/31/the-government-says-money-isnt-property-so-it-can-take-yours/