Cleveland v. King was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 2020. The case involved a dispute between the City of Cleveland and a group of property owners over the city’s decision to demolish a building owned by the property owners. The property owners argued that the city’s decision to demolish the building was a violation of their constitutional rights. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the property owners, finding that the city’s decision to demolish the building was a violation of the property owners’ constitutional rights. The Court held that the city’s decision to demolish the building was an unreasonable exercise of its police power and was not supported by a legitimate public purpose. The Court also held that the city’s decision to demolish the building was not supported by substantial evidence and was not reasonably related to a legitimate public purpose. The Court’s decision in Cleveland v. King is significant because it reaffirmed the importance of protecting property owners’ constitutional rights and ensuring that government decisions are based on legitimate public purposes.

In the dissenting opinion of Cleveland v. King, Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision to allow a jury to decide whether or not an officer acted reasonably in using deadly force was wrong and should be reversed. He argued that it is up to the court, not a jury, to make such determinations as they are better equipped with legal knowledge and experience than jurors. Furthermore, he stated that allowing juries to determine reasonableness would lead them into making decisions based on their own personal feelings rather than what is legally required by precedent set forth in previous cases. In conclusion, Justice Scalia believed that this case should have been decided by the court instead of leaving it up for interpretation by a jury who may lack understanding of applicable laws and precedents when determining if an officer used reasonable force or not.