In Crescent City Live Stock Company v. Butchers' Union Slaughter-House Company, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state law that granted a monopoly to a private company was constitutional. The case involved a Louisiana law that granted a monopoly to the Butchers' Union Slaughter-House Company to operate a slaughterhouse in New Orleans. The Crescent City Live Stock Company argued that the law violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, as it granted a monopoly to a private company and thus denied other companies the right to compete. The Supreme Court held that the law was constitutional, as it was a valid exercise of the state's police power. The Court reasoned that the state had a legitimate interest in protecting the health and safety of its citizens, and that the law was a reasonable means of achieving that goal. The Court also noted that the law did not completely exclude other companies from operating slaughterhouses, as it allowed them to do so under certain conditions. Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that the law was constitutional, as it was a valid exercise of the state's police power. The Court reasoned that the state had a legitimate interest in protecting the health and safety of its citizens, and that the law was a reasonable means of achieving that goal. The Court also noted that the law did not completely exclude other companies from operating slaughterhouses, as it allowed them to do so under certain conditions.

In Crescent City Live Stock Company v. Butchers' Union Slaughter-House Company, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state law that granted exclusive privileges to one company violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The majority opinion held that such laws did not violate the amendment and thus were constitutional. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that granting exclusive rights to one company constituted an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation; secondly, he argued that it violated due process by allowing private companies to be given special privileges over other similar businesses in violation of equal protection under the law. He concluded his dissent by stating “The right secured by [the Fourteenth] Amendment is absolute and universal” and therefore any legislation which grants exclusive rights or privileges should be struck down as unconstitutional regardless of its purpose or intent.