In the case of District of Columbia v. Petty (1912), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant, Mr. Petty, who was a property owner in Washington D.C., and had been fined for refusing to connect his properties to the public sewer system as required by local law. The court held that while it is within a municipality's power to require property owners to make such connections for public health reasons, this power must be exercised reasonably and not arbitrarily or oppressively. In this case, since there were no sewers available within reach of Mr. Petty's properties at reasonable cost when he was ordered to make connection with them under penalty if he failed so do so; therefore, it would have been unreasonable and oppressive enforcement on part of authorities which led court ruling against District Of Columbia.

In the dissenting opinion for District of Columbia v. Petty, 1912, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a fine imposed on a man who had refused to answer questions about his private affairs during an investigation by the Commissioners of the District of Columbia. He argued that it was not within their power to compel such answers without statutory authority and that this constituted an invasion of privacy. Furthermore, he contended that even if they did have such authority, it would be unconstitutional as it violated Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination. In essence, Justice Holmes believed in upholding individual rights and liberties over governmental powers in this case.