In Brownsville v. Cavazos, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a Texas statute that allowed a municipality to issue bonds to finance the construction of a bridge was constitutional. The Court held that the statute was constitutional, as it did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The case arose when the City of Brownsville, Texas, sought to issue bonds to finance the construction of a bridge across the Rio Grande River. The bonds were to be issued to a private company, Cavazos, which would then construct the bridge. The City argued that the statute allowing the issuance of the bonds was constitutional, as it did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed with the City, holding that the statute was constitutional. The Court reasoned that the statute did not discriminate against any particular class of persons, and that it was a valid exercise of the City's power to issue bonds for public works. The Court also noted that the statute did not violate the Equal Protection Clause, as it did not create any special privileges or immunities for any particular class of persons. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the Texas statute allowing the City of Brownsville to issue bonds to finance the construction of a bridge was constitutional, as it did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Brownsville v. Cavazos, arguing that the majority had misapplied Texas law and disregarded established legal principles. He argued that a contract was formed between Brownsville and Cavazos when he accepted payment for his services as an attorney, even though it was not written down or signed by either party. According to Justice Field, this agreement created a debt owed from Brownsville to Cavazos which could be enforced through legal action if necessary. Furthermore, he noted that under Texas law at the time of this case, verbal contracts were just as valid as written ones and should be treated with equal respect in court proceedings. Finally, Justice Field concluded by stating that since there was no evidence presented during trial indicating any fraud or misrepresentation on behalf of either party involved in this dispute over payment for services rendered, then judgment should have been entered against Brownsville instead of dismissing the case outright without consideration for its merits.