In the case of Chicago v. Sheldon, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a city ordinance that prohibited the sale of alcohol within the city limits was constitutional. The city of Chicago had passed the ordinance in an effort to reduce public drunkenness and other related problems. The Supreme Court held that the ordinance was constitutional, finding that the city had the power to regulate the sale of alcohol within its limits. The Court noted that the ordinance was a reasonable exercise of the city's police power, and that it was not an unreasonable restriction on the right to sell alcohol. The Court also noted that the ordinance was not an infringement on the right to purchase alcohol, as it did not prohibit the purchase of alcohol outside the city limits. The Court's decision in Chicago v. Sheldon established that cities have the power to regulate the sale of alcohol within their limits, and that such regulations are a reasonable exercise of the city's police power. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since, and has been used to uphold similar ordinances in other cities.

In the case of Chicago v. Sheldon, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the city of Chicago had no authority to pass an ordinance requiring property owners to build sidewalks and curbs on their own land. He reasoned that such an ordinance was beyond the scope of municipal power granted by state law, as it would amount to taking private property for public use without just compensation. Furthermore, Field argued that if cities were allowed this kind of power then they could impose any number of burdensome regulations on citizens with impunity. He concluded by stating that while municipalities should have some control over local matters, they must remain within their constitutional limits when doing so or else risk infringing upon individual rights protected under federal law.