In Emily Poultney et al. v. The City of Lafayette, Isaac T. Preston et al., the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a city ordinance that prohibited certain businesses from operating within its limits was constitutional or not. The appellants argued that the ordinance violated their right to pursue a lawful occupation and infringed upon their property rights without due process of law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. In response, defendants argued that they had acted in good faith and were only trying to protect public health and safety through this regulation which did not violate any constitutional provisions since it applied equally across all citizens regardless of race or gender. After considering both sides’ arguments, the court held in favor of defendants ruling that cities have broad powers when it comes to regulating business activities for purposes such as protecting public health and safety so long as those regulations are reasonable and do not discriminate against any particular group or individual on account of race or gender etc..

In the case of Emily Poultney et al. v. The City of Lafayette, Isaac T. Preston et al., the dissenting opinion argued that a city ordinance passed by the defendants was unconstitutional and should be overturned as it violated Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution which states that no state shall pass any law impairing contracts between citizens or with foreign nations or their citizens. The dissent further argued that this ordinance impaired an existing contract between two parties, namely Emily Poultney and her husband who had been granted permission to build a wharf on property owned by them in exchange for certain fees paid to the city government; thus, rendering said ordinance void under constitutional law. Furthermore, they contended that if such ordinances were allowed to stand then all private contracts would be subject to interference from local governments whenever it suited their interests - something which is clearly not permissible according to established legal precedent set forth in numerous Supreme Court decisions over time.