Dows v. City of Chicago was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1870. The case involved a dispute between the City of Chicago and the plaintiff, William Dows, over the city's right to take private property for public use. Dows had purchased a lot of land in the city and had built a house on it. The city then passed an ordinance that allowed it to take the land for public use, without providing any compensation to Dows. Dows argued that the ordinance was unconstitutional, as it violated the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which states that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. The Supreme Court agreed with Dows, ruling that the ordinance was unconstitutional and that the city must provide just compensation for the taking of private property. The ruling in Dows v. City of Chicago established the principle of eminent domain, which is the power of the government to take private property for public use, provided that just compensation is provided to the owner. This ruling has been cited in numerous cases since then, and is still an important part of the law today.

In Dows v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a city ordinance that allowed for the destruction of buildings in order to widen streets and improve public safety was constitutional. The majority opinion held that it was within the power of municipalities to enact such ordinances as long as they were reasonable and did not violate any other laws or rights. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that while cities may have some authority over their own affairs, they do not possess unlimited powers when it comes to taking private property without just compensation. He argued that if a municipality is going to take away someone's property for its own use then it must provide fair compensation under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. Furthermore, he argued that even if an ordinance is deemed necessary by local authorities there should be limits on how much can be taken without proper payment being made first; otherwise people will suffer unjustly at the hands of government entities with no recourse available due them.