In the 1933 case of Chassaniol v. City of Greenwood, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city, upholding its right to enforce zoning laws that restricted certain business operations within specified areas. The plaintiff, Chassaniol, owned a cotton compressing business which was affected by these zoning regulations and argued that they were unconstitutional as they violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection under law. However, the court disagreed with this argument stating that such restrictions were necessary for public welfare and did not infrac on individual constitutional rights if implemented fairly across all businesses operating within those zones. This ruling reinforced local governments' authority to regulate land use through zoning ordinances.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Chassaniol v. City of Greenwood argued that the majority's decision to uphold a city ordinance prohibiting door-to-door solicitation without prior consent was an unconstitutional infringement on freedom of speech and commerce. The dissent contended that such ordinances could be used as tools for discrimination, allowing residents to selectively deny access based on personal biases or prejudices. Furthermore, it was suggested that this ruling would set a dangerous precedent by giving local governments excessive power over commercial activities within their jurisdictions, potentially stifering economic growth and innovation. The dissent also pointed out inconsistencies in how similar cases had been handled previously, arguing for greater consistency in judicial interpretation of constitutional rights.