In the case of William Fowle, Surviving Partner v. The Common Council of Alexandria, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a Virginia state law that allowed for local governments to tax certain goods and services violated the Constitution's Contract Clause. At issue in this case was an 1820 act passed by Virginia which authorized cities like Alexandria to impose taxes on items such as groceries, liquors, and other commodities sold within their boundaries. Plaintiff William Fowle argued that this law interfered with his existing contract with another party because it increased his costs associated with selling those goods without providing any compensation or benefit in return. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled against Fowle and upheld the constitutionality of the Virginia statute under consideration due to its limited scope and application only within city limits; however they did note that if similar laws were enacted at a statewide level then they would likely be found unconstitutional as violating both Article I Section 10 of the U.S Constitution (Contracts Clause) as well as principles established by prior court decisions regarding contracts between private parties.

In the case of William Fowle, Surviving Partner v. The Common Council of Alexandria, the dissenting opinion argued that a state law which allowed for an appeal to be taken from a decision made by local authorities was unconstitutional and violated Article III Section 2 Clause 1 of the United States Constitution. This clause states that appeals can only be taken in cases involving controversies between two or more states or citizens thereof. In this particular case, there were no such controversies as it involved only one citizen and one municipality. Therefore, according to Chief Justice Marshall's dissent opinion, allowing an appeal would violate the constitution since it is not within its scope to allow appeals in matters concerning just one party on either side.