In the 1906 U.S. Supreme Court case Coffey v. County of Harlan, John C.Coffey sued Harlan County in Kentucky for damages after he was injured by a bridge collapse while driving his wagon across it. The county had contracted with a third party to build and maintain the bridge, but Coffey argued that the county was still responsible as they should have ensured its safety. The court ruled in favor of Harlan County, stating that counties could not be held liable for injuries resulting from negligence or misconduct on public works projects if those projects were carried out by independent contractors rather than directly by the county itself.

In the dissenting opinion for Coffey v. County of Harlan, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Kentucky law prohibiting alcohol sales within four miles of a school or church violated individual property rights and exceeded state police powers. The dissent contended that while states have broad authority to regulate public health, safety, and morals under their police powers, this power is not unlimited. It must be exercised in a manner consistent with constitutional protections for private property rights. In this case, the dissent believed that by banning alcohol sales entirely within certain areas rather than regulating them more narrowly (e.g., limiting hours of sale), Kentucky had effectively confiscated private property without compensation—a violation of due process guarantees under the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, they questioned whether such an expansive ban truly served any legitimate public interest given its potential economic impact on local businesses and communities.