In the 1906 case of Barrington v. Missouri, the U.S Supreme Court examined whether a state law that allowed for private property to be taken for public use without just compensation was constitutional. The plaintiff, Barrington, had his land seized by the State of Missouri under eminent domain laws in order to construct a drainage system. He argued this violated his Fifth Amendment rights as he did not receive adequate compensation for his property and it was not being used for public benefit but rather private gain. However, the court ruled against him stating that while the Fifth Amendment does protect against seizure of private property without just compensation, it only applies when federal action is involved - not state actions like in this case.

In the dissenting opinion for Barrington v. Missouri, 1906, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting interracial marriage violated both due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissenting justices believed that such laws were based on prejudice and served no legitimate purpose other than to perpetuate racial discrimination. They also pointed out inconsistencies in how these laws were applied, noting that they often targeted specific racial groups while ignoring others. Furthermore, they contended that these laws infringed upon an individual's fundamental right to marry whomever they choose regardless of race or ethnicity. Ultimately, their view was one rooted in upholding civil liberties and promoting equality under the law.