In the 1945 case of Bailey v. Anderson, State Highway Commissioner, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of a property owner whose land was taken by eminent domain for highway construction without proper compensation. The plaintiff, Mr. Bailey, argued that his constitutional rights were violated when the state took his property and did not provide just compensation as required by the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. The court agreed with Mr. Bailey and held that he had a right to be compensated fairly for his property loss due to public use by government authorities such as building highways or other infrastructure projects.

In the dissenting opinion for Bailey v. Anderson, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring landowners to surrender part of their property for highway construction without compensation was unconstitutional. The dissenting justices believed this violated the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, which states that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation. They contended that while highways are indeed necessary and beneficial to society at large, they should not be built at an unfair expense to individual citizens who happen to own land in their path. The minority opinion held that such uncompensated takings were fundamentally unjust and contrary to American principles of fairness and respect for private property rights.