In the case of Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company v. Chicago in 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that private property could not be taken for public use without just compensation to its owner, as per the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. The city of Chicago had used eminent domain to acquire a right-of-way for a new street across land owned by several railroads including the plaintiff’s railroad company but offered an amount deemed insufficient by them as compensation. This led to litigation where it was argued that this action violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment because no adequate compensation was provided. The court unanimously held that while states have power over private property within their jurisdiction, they must provide just compensation if such property is taken for public use - effectively applying federal constitutional restrictions on state actions.

In the dissenting opinion for Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company v. Chicago, Justice Harlan argued that the court's decision to allow states to determine just compensation in eminent domain cases was a dangerous precedent. He believed it gave too much power to state courts and legislatures at the expense of individual property rights protected by the Constitution. Harlan contended that this ruling effectively allowed states to seize private property without providing fair compensation as required by the Fifth Amendment. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuses of power where local or state governments could undervalue properties for their own benefit during expropriation processes.