In the case of City of Monroe, et al. v. United States in 1997, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving federal funding for local law enforcement agencies. The city of Monroe and other municipalities sued the U.S., arguing that they were entitled to certain funds under a provision in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (VCCLEA) which required allocation based on population size. However, this was disputed by smaller jurisdictions who claimed these funds should be distributed evenly among all qualifying jurisdictions regardless of their size. The court sided with the government's interpretation that distribution should be made "on an equitable basis" rather than strictly according to population size as argued by larger cities like Monroe. This ruling upheld lower courts' decisions favoring smaller jurisdictions over larger ones when distributing VCCLEA funds.

In the dissenting opinion for the City of Monroe v. United States case, it was argued that the majority's decision to hold a municipality liable under federal law for actions taken by its police officers was an overreach of judicial power and inconsistent with precedent. The dissenters believed that municipalities should not be held responsible for their employees' actions unless there is clear evidence showing they endorsed or approved those actions. They also expressed concern about potential financial burdens on local governments resulting from this ruling, which could lead to cuts in public services or increased taxes. Furthermore, they questioned whether holding municipalities accountable would actually deter individual police officers from violating citizens' rights in future cases.