In the case of District of Columbia, et al., v. Tri County Industries, Inc., 2000, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over waste disposal contracts. The District of Columbia and its Public Works Department had entered into an agreement with Tri County Industries for waste disposal services. However, they later terminated this contract without providing any compensation to Tri County Industries for their investments in equipment and facilities made specifically to fulfill this contract. This led to a lawsuit where Tri County claimed that such termination was unconstitutional as it violated their due process rights under the Fifth Amendment by taking away their property without just compensation. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the District of Columbia stating that while government contracts can create property interests protected by due process clause, not all contractual interests rise to level deserving constitutional protection against arbitrary governmental action affecting them adversely; hence no violation occurred when DC cancelled its trash removal contract with plaintiff who had invested heavily based on expected profits from long-term deal.

The dissenting opinion in the case of District of Columbia, et al., v. Tri County Industries, Inc., argued that the majority's decision to allow a private company to sue for damages under federal antitrust laws was misguided. The dissenters believed this ruling would open up floodgates for lawsuits against local governments and potentially cripple their ability to function effectively. They pointed out that Congress had never intended these laws to apply in such a way when they were originally enacted. Furthermore, they contended that allowing such suits could lead to an increase in taxes as municipalities struggle with legal costs or potential damage awards from litigation. This financial burden would ultimately fall on taxpayers who are not equipped or responsible for bearing it.