In Cannon v. New Orleans, the United States Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of a city ordinance that prohibited the sale of alcoholic beverages within the city limits. The ordinance was challenged by a local tavern owner, who argued that the ordinance violated his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the ordinance was constitutional. The Court reasoned that the ordinance was a valid exercise of the city's police power, and that it did not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court noted that the ordinance was a reasonable regulation of the sale of alcohol, and that it was not an arbitrary or oppressive exercise of power. The Court also held that the ordinance did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that the ordinance was a valid exercise of the city's police power, and that it was not an arbitrary or oppressive exercise of power. The Court noted that the ordinance was a reasonable regulation of the sale of alcohol, and that it did not discriminate against any particular class of persons. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the ordinance was a valid exercise of the city's police power, and that it did not violate the due process or equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court noted that the ordinance was a reasonable regulation of the sale of alcohol, and that it was not an arbitrary or oppressive exercise of power.

In Cannon v. New Orleans, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a city ordinance that prohibited African Americans from entering into contracts for labor with white persons violated the Thirteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The majority opinion held that it did not violate the amendment because it only regulated private contracts and did not involve involuntary servitude or slavery. Justice Field dissented, arguing that while this particular ordinance may have been limited in scope, its purpose was still to deny African Americans their freedom by preventing them from making voluntary agreements with whites on equal terms as other citizens were allowed to do. He argued further that such an act constituted a form of discrimination based solely on race and should be considered unconstitutional under both the Thirteenth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.