In City of Tahlequah v. Bond, the Supreme Court held that a city’s ordinance requiring property owners to pay for sidewalks in front of their homes was not an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment. The case arose when a homeowner challenged the constitutionality of an ordinance passed by the City of Tahlequah, Oklahoma which required homeowners to bear all costs associated with constructing and maintaining sidewalks adjacent to their properties. The homeowner argued that this constituted an illegal “taking” without just compensation as prohibited by the Fifth Amendment. However, after considering both sides' arguments, including those from amici curiae briefs filed on behalf of several states and local governments supporting Tahlequah's position, the Supreme Court ultimately found in favor of Tahlequah and upheld its sidewalk ordinance as constitutional. In doing so, it reasoned that such ordinances are common throughout many cities across America and serve important public safety interests; thus they do not constitute takings under existing law or precedent set forth by prior cases involving similar issues.

In the case of City of Tahlequah v. Bond, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma issued a dissenting opinion. The majority opinion held that the City of Tahlequah had the right to terminate the employment of a police officer, Bond, without providing a hearing or any other due process protections. The dissenting opinion argued that the City of Tahlequah had violated Bond’s due process rights by failing to provide him with a hearing or any other form of due process. The dissent argued that the City of Tahlequah had violated Bond’s due process rights by failing to provide him with a hearing or any other form of due process. The dissent argued that the City of Tahlequah had failed to provide Bond with any notice of the charges against him, any opportunity to be heard, or any opportunity to present evidence in his defense. The dissent argued that the City of Tahlequah had failed to provide Bond with any of the basic due process protections that are required by the United States Constitution. The dissent argued that the City of Tahlequah had violated Bond’s due process rights by failing to provide him with a hearing or any other form of due process. The dissent argued that the City of Tahlequah had failed to provide Bond with any notice of the charges against him, any opportunity to be heard, or any opportunity to present evidence in his defense. The dissent argued that the City of Tahlequah had failed to provide Bond with any of the basic due process protections that are required by the United States Constitution. The dissent argued that the City of Tahlequah had violated Bond’s due process rights by failing to provide him with a hearing or any other form of due process. The dissent argued that the City of Tahlequah had failed to provide Bond with any notice of the charges against him, any opportunity to be heard, or any opportunity to present evidence in his defense. The dissent argued that the City of Tahlequah had failed to provide Bond with any of the basic due process protections that are required by the United States Constitution. The dissent argued that the City of Tahlequah had violated Bond’s due process rights by failing to provide him with a hearing or any other form of due process. The dissent argued that the City of Tahlequah had failed to provide Bond with any notice of the charges against him, any opportunity to be heard