In the case of District of Columbia v. Pace, 1943, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the District of Columbia. The dispute arose when Pace, a property owner in Washington D.C., was charged for sidewalk repairs by the city under an act that allowed it to assess costs for public improvements against abutting landowners. Pace argued that this violated his Fifth Amendment rights as he did not receive just compensation for private property taken for public use and due process was not followed since he had no opportunity to challenge these charges before they were imposed. The court disagreed with Pace's arguments stating that sidewalks are a form of public easement and their repair is considered a benefit to adjacent properties rather than taking them away from owners' control or possession; hence there is no violation of Fifth Amendment rights. Furthermore, it held that due process does not require pre-assessment hearing but only necessitates notice and an opportunity at some point either before or after assessment which was provided here through statutory provisions allowing objections within thirty days post notification.

In the dissenting opinion for District of Columbia v. Pace, Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of law and justice. He contended that it was not fair to hold an individual responsible for a crime when they were unaware of its illegality due to changes in laws or regulations. The defendant, in this case, had been convicted under a regulation which he could not have known about because it had only been enacted after his alleged offense occurred. Justice Murphy believed this violated fundamental notions of fairness and due process rights protected by the Constitution. He maintained that individuals should be given reasonable notice about what constitutes illegal behavior before being held accountable for such actions.