In the District of Columbia v. Robinson case in 1900, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving property rights and taxation. The plaintiff, Robinson, owned land in Washington D.C., which was assessed for tax purposes at $1 per square foot by local authorities. However, he argued that this assessment was excessive and unfair because similar properties were valued much lower - at around 30 cents per square foot. He sought to have his property re-assessed based on its actual value rather than an arbitrary rate set by officials. The court sided with Robinson stating that all assessments must be equal and uniform; hence it is unconstitutional to assess one person's property higher than another's if they are of equivalent value or nature. This ruling reinforced the principle of equality before law under the Fourteenth Amendment as well as clarified how properties should be evaluated for tax purposes - not arbitrarily but based on their real worth.

In the dissenting opinion for District of Columbia v. Robinson, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of the law and an overreach of government power. He contended that while it is within Congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce, this case did not fall under such jurisdiction as it involved purely local matters in Washington D.C., which should be governed by its own municipal laws rather than federal ones. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view on what constitutes "commerce," arguing that simply because goods may eventually enter into commerce does not mean their production or handling can be regulated as such. This interpretation would give Congress virtually unlimited power to control all aspects of business operations within states and municipalities - a clear violation of state rights and individual liberties enshrined in the Constitution.