In the 1973 case of Berry v. City of Cincinnati, the United States Supreme Court dealt with an issue concerning police power and individual rights. The plaintiff, Berry, was a taxi driver who had his license revoked by the city after being convicted for carrying a concealed weapon while off duty. He challenged this decision arguing that it violated his constitutional right to bear arms as well as due process under law since he wasn't given any notice or hearing before revocation. However, both lower courts ruled in favor of the city stating that public safety outweighed individual rights in this context. The Supreme Court affirmed these decisions on appeal without issuing an opinion but with three justices dissenting - Justices Douglas, Brennan and Marshall argued that there should be some procedural safeguards before such drastic action is taken against someone's livelihood based on their off-duty conduct unrelated to job performance.

In the dissenting opinion for Berry v. City of Cincinnati, Justice Douglas argued that the majority's decision to uphold a city ordinance prohibiting loitering was an infringement on individual liberties protected by the Constitution. He contended that such laws were overly broad and vague, giving law enforcement too much discretion in their application which could lead to arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement. Furthermore, he asserted that these types of ordinances criminalized innocent behavior and had historically been used as tools for social control rather than legitimate crime prevention measures. In his view, this particular ordinance violated both First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly as well as Fourteenth Amendment protections against deprivation of liberty without due process of law.