In East St. Louis v. Amy, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a city ordinance that prohibited the sale of alcohol within the city limits was constitutional. The ordinance was challenged by Amy, a resident of East St. Louis, who argued that the ordinance violated her right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the ordinance was constitutional. The Court reasoned that the ordinance was a valid exercise of the city's police power, and that it did not violate Amy's right to due process. The Court noted that the ordinance was a reasonable exercise of the city's authority to regulate the sale of alcohol within its borders, and that it did not infringe upon Amy's right to due process. The Court also held that the ordinance was not an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation, as Amy had argued. The Court reasoned that the ordinance did not deprive Amy of her property, but rather regulated the sale of alcohol within the city limits. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the ordinance was a valid exercise of the city's police power, and that it did not violate Amy's right to due process or constitute an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation.

In the case of East St. Louis v. Amy, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not a city ordinance which prohibited certain types of businesses from operating within its limits was constitutional. The majority opinion held that such an ordinance did not violate any federal laws and could be enforced by local authorities without interference from the courts. Justice Field dissented, arguing that while cities have broad authority to regulate their own affairs, they cannot do so in a manner which violates fundamental rights protected under the Constitution or other federal statutes. He further argued that this particular ordinance violated both due process and equal protection clauses as it discriminated against certain classes of people based on their occupation or profession without providing them with adequate opportunity for redress before being punished for violating it.