In the case of Amy v. Watertown, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a municipality could be held liable for failing to provide adequate police protection to a citizen. The case arose when Amy, a resident of Watertown, Massachusetts, was attacked and robbed in her home. Amy sued the town of Watertown, claiming that the town had failed to provide adequate police protection, and that this failure had caused her injury. The Supreme Court held that a municipality can be held liable for failing to provide adequate police protection if the municipality had knowledge of a special danger to the plaintiff and failed to take reasonable steps to protect the plaintiff from that danger. The Court found that Watertown had knowledge of the danger posed to Amy, but had failed to take reasonable steps to protect her. As a result, the Court held that Watertown was liable for Amy's injuries. The decision in Amy v. Watertown established that municipalities can be held liable for failing to provide adequate police protection to citizens. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since, and has been used to establish that municipalities have a duty to protect their citizens from foreseeable harm.

In the Supreme Court case of Amy v. Watertown, Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority’s decision was wrong and should be overturned. He disagreed with their interpretation of Title IX, arguing that it does not provide for an individual right to sue for damages when they have been discriminated against on the basis of sex. Instead, he argued that Title IX only provides protection from discrimination by educational institutions receiving federal funds and does not give individuals any additional rights beyond those already provided by other laws such as Title VII or state anti-discrimination statutes. Furthermore, Scalia argued that even if there were an individual right to sue under Title IX, this particular plaintiff did not meet all of its requirements since she had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies before filing suit in court. In conclusion, Justice Scalia believed that the majority’s ruling was incorrect and should be reversed because it would create a new cause of action where none existed before while also failing to adhere to established legal principles regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies prior to bringing suit in court.