The Briscoe v. Rudolph et al., Commissioners of the District of Columbia case in 1910 revolved around a dispute over property rights and taxation. The plaintiff, Briscoe, owned land that was part of an alleyway closed by the city under its authority to regulate public spaces for safety and welfare purposes. The city then assessed taxes on this newly enclosed land as if it were open space available for use or development. Briscoe argued that he should not be taxed because his property had been taken without compensation, violating his Fifth Amendment rights against unlawful seizure. However, the Supreme Court ruled against him stating that closing an alley does not constitute taking private property but is merely regulation for public safety reasons which falls within government's police power jurisdiction. Furthermore, they stated that even though access to certain parts of his property might have been restricted due to closure of the alleyway; it did not mean complete deprivation from using or disposing off those parts hence no violation occurred.

In the dissenting opinion for Briscoe v. Rudolph et al., it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a law prohibiting the sale of liquor in certain areas of Washington D.C. violated property rights and personal liberty. The dissenting justices contended that such legislation amounted to an arbitrary exercise of police power, which they believed should be used only when necessary for public safety or welfare, not as a means to enforce moral standards on private individuals' behavior. They also pointed out inconsistencies in how this law was applied, noting that while some businesses were forced to close due to their proximity to schools or churches, others nearby remained open because they fell just outside the restricted zones. This selective enforcement raised questions about equal protection under the law and suggested potential bias against certain business owners.