In the 1897 case of Douglas v. Kentucky, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Mrs. Douglas, was an heir to her father's estate which included several valuable properties in Louisville, Kentucky. However, she had been disinherited by her father due to marrying against his wishes without his consent when she was underage (16 years old). After her father's death, Mrs. Douglas sued for possession of these properties arguing that since she married as a minor without parental consent or court approval it should be considered void under Kentucky law thus making her eligible for inheritance. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument stating that while such marriages could indeed be annulled at will by either party during their minority they become valid if not dissolved before reaching adulthood (18 years old). Since Mrs.Douglas continued living with her husband after turning 18 and never sought dissolution of marriage until after inheriting from him upon his death; the court held that their marriage became valid retrospectively once they reached adulthood thereby disqualifying her claim over inherited property from parents who had expressly disinherited them due to said marriage.

In the dissenting opinion for Douglas v. Kentucky, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring racial segregation in public accommodations violated both the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissenting justices believed that this law perpetuated harmful stereotypes about African Americans and served no legitimate government interest. They also contended that such laws were not truly neutral because they disproportionately affected people of color, thereby violating their right to equal protection under the law. Furthermore, they asserted that these laws infringed upon individuals' liberty interests by restricting where they could go and with whom they could associate, thus contravening due process rights. In sum, while acknowledging states' power to regulate public accommodations for health or safety reasons, these justices maintained that using this power to enforce racial segregation was unconstitutional.