In the case of Egan v. City of Aurora et al., 1960, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over zoning ordinances in Aurora, Illinois. The plaintiff, Egan, owned property that was zoned for single-family residences but wanted to use it for multi-family dwellings and commercial purposes instead. He argued that this restriction violated his constitutional rights by depriving him of his property without due process and equal protection under law. However, the court ruled against him stating that such zoning restrictions were within the power of local governments as long as they were reasonable and not arbitrary or discriminatory. They found no evidence to suggest any unfair treatment towards Egan's property compared to others in similar circumstances within the same zone; hence there was no violation of equal protection clause either.

In the dissenting opinion for EGAN v. CITY OF AURORA et al., the justice disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a city ordinance that required all firefighters and police officers to live within city limits. The justice argued that this requirement was an unnecessary restriction on personal freedom, as it did not directly relate to job performance or public safety. They also pointed out potential negative consequences of such a rule, including limiting diversity in these professions and potentially discouraging qualified individuals from applying if they do not wish to move into the city. Furthermore, they contended that there were other ways for cities to ensure quick response times without imposing residency requirements, such as providing accommodations near work sites or implementing on-call systems.