In Crossley & Another v. City of New Orleans & Another, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a city ordinance was constitutional. The ordinance in question required that all persons who wished to operate a business in the city must obtain a license from the city. The plaintiffs argued that the ordinance was unconstitutional because it violated their right to due process of law. 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, and that it did not violate the plaintiffs' right to due process of law. The Court noted that the ordinance was not overly burdensome, and that it was necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. The Court also held that the ordinance did not violate the plaintiffs' right to equal protection of the law. The Court noted that the ordinance was applied equally to all persons wishing to operate a business in the city, and that it did not discriminate against any particular group. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the ordinance was constitutional, and that it did not violate the plaintiffs' right to due process of law or their right to equal protection of the law.

In Crossley & Another v. City of New Orleans & Another, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a city ordinance that allowed for the sale of property at public auction if taxes were not paid violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority opinion held that it did not violate due process because there had been sufficient notice given and an opportunity to be heard before any action could take place. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that while notice may have been provided in some cases, it was inadequate in others; secondly, he argued that even with adequate notice being given prior to taking action against delinquent taxpayers' property, they should still have a right to appeal or challenge such actions as part of their due process rights. He concluded by stating "the power thus assumed by municipalities is one which cannot be exercised without violating those fundamental principles upon which all free governments are founded."