In the 1910 case Fisher v. City of New Orleans, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving property rights and municipal authority. The plaintiff, Fisher, owned land in New Orleans that was taken by the city for public use without compensation under its right to expropriate private property for drainage purposes. Fisher argued this violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights because he did not receive due process or just compensation as required by law when private property is seized for public use (eminent domain). However, the court upheld the city's actions stating that it had acted within its powers granted by Louisiana state legislation which allowed cities to take necessary measures to protect public health and safety such as improving sanitation through better drainage systems. Therefore, despite acknowledging that individual rights are important and protected under federal law, they can be overridden if there is an overriding need related to maintaining public welfare.

In the dissenting opinion for Fisher v. City of New Orleans, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a city ordinance prohibiting public gatherings without police permission infringed upon citizens' First Amendment rights. The dissenting justices believed that this law gave too much power to local authorities and could potentially be used as a tool for suppressing political dissent or unpopular views. They contended that such an ordinance was not narrowly tailored enough to serve its intended purpose of maintaining public order and safety, thus failing strict scrutiny - the highest standard of judicial review in constitutional law cases. Furthermore, they expressed concerns about potential discriminatory enforcement against certain groups or individuals based on their beliefs or identities. Therefore, they concluded that this law violated freedom of assembly and should have been struck down as unconstitutional.