In Fowle v. The Common Council of Alexandria, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a municipal corporation had the power to impose taxes on individuals for public works projects. William Fowle argued that such taxation without representation violated his constitutional rights as an individual citizen and thus should be declared unconstitutional. The court ruled in favor of Alexandria's common council, finding that it did have the authority to tax citizens for public works projects under certain conditions; namely, if those funds were used exclusively for local purposes and not diverted elsewhere or misused by government officials. This ruling established a precedent allowing municipalities greater autonomy when it comes to raising revenue through taxation than they previously enjoyed before this case was decided.

In Fowle v. The Common Council of Alexandria, Chief Justice Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should have found for the plaintiff. He believed that the defendant had not provided sufficient evidence to prove their case and thus failed to meet their burden of proof. Furthermore, he argued that even if they had met this burden, it was still unclear whether or not they were legally entitled to take possession of Fowle's property as there was no clear legal authority granting them such power. Finally, Marshall noted that while Congress may have granted local governments certain powers over public works projects like roads and bridges, these powers did not extend so far as to allow them to seize private property without due process or just compensation for its taking - both rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.