In Clark v. Iowa City, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a city ordinance that prohibited the sale of intoxicating liquors within the city limits was constitutional. The ordinance was challenged by a local saloonkeeper, who argued that the ordinance violated his right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the ordinance was constitutional. The Court reasoned that the ordinance was a valid exercise of the city's police power, which is the power of a state or local government to regulate activities within its jurisdiction for the public health, safety, and welfare. The Court noted that the ordinance was a reasonable means of protecting the public from the evils of alcohol consumption. The Court also held that the ordinance did not violate the saloonkeeper's right to due process of law. The Court reasoned that the ordinance was a valid exercise of the city's police power, and that the saloonkeeper had no vested right to sell alcohol in the city. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the ordinance was constitutional and did not violate the saloonkeeper's right to due process of law. The Court's decision established that local governments have the power to regulate activities within their jurisdiction for the public health, safety, and welfare.

In Clark v. Iowa City, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a city ordinance that prohibited any person from carrying concealed weapons violated the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. The majority opinion held that it did not violate the Second Amendment because it only regulated how people could carry their firearms and did not prohibit them from owning or possessing guns altogether. Justice Field dissented, arguing that while cities have some authority to regulate public safety, they do not have absolute power over citizens' rights under the Constitution. He argued that this ordinance went too far in restricting citizens' right to bear arms by prohibiting them from carrying their firearms in any manner other than openly visible on their persons at all times when outside of their homes or places of business. He concluded by stating his belief that such an ordinance would be unconstitutional as applied to individuals who were lawfully exercising their constitutional right to keep and bear arms for self-defense purposes within Iowa City's limits