In the case of Chapman & Dewey Lumber Co. v. St. Francis Levee District, 1913, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state law that allowed for levee taxes on land within a certain district violated the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause if it did not provide an opportunity to challenge those assessments before they were imposed. The lumber company argued that their property had been wrongfully included in this taxing district and thus unfairly taxed without any benefit received from the levees' construction or maintenance. The court ruled against Chapman & Dewey Lumber Co., stating that there is no constitutional requirement for pre-assessment hearings regarding taxation as long as there are adequate opportunities to challenge such assessments afterward through legal proceedings in state courts. It further noted that while some properties might not directly benefit from a public improvement like a levee system, they could still be validly taxed under broader considerations of public welfare and benefits conferred upon an entire area or community by such improvements.

In the dissenting opinion for Chapman & Dewey Lumber Co. v. St. Francis Levee District, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision that a state law allowing levee districts to tax private property was constitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause. He argued that this taxation violated principles of fairness and justice as it disproportionately burdened certain landowners without providing them any special benefits in return, thus constituting an arbitrary use of government power. Furthermore, he contended that such taxes should be considered assessments rather than general taxes because they were used specifically for local improvements benefiting only those within the district boundaries; therefore, they should have been apportioned according to benefit received by each property owner instead of their properties' value alone.