In the case of Chicago and Northwestern Railway Company v. Chicago, 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that private property could not be taken for public use without just compensation to its owner under the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. The City of Chicago had condemned a portion of land owned by the railway company for street purposes but did not provide any compensation as they believed it was their right under state law. However, this decision established that local governments were subject to constitutional limitations when exercising eminent domain powers and set a precedent in American law regarding property rights protection against state infringement.

In the dissenting opinion for Chicago and Northwestern Railway Company v. Chicago, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to apply federal constitutional protections to state actions was a significant departure from precedent. He contended that this interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment went beyond its original intent, which he believed was primarily aimed at protecting newly freed slaves after the Civil War. Moreover, he expressed concern about potential implications of such broad application on states' rights and their ability to manage local affairs without undue interference from federal courts. He also disagreed with how compensation for property taken by public authorities should be determined under due process clause; instead of market value alone as decided by majority, he suggested considering other factors like inconvenience caused or benefits received by property owners.