In the Goldblatt et al. v. Town of Hempstead case in 1961, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute between a mining company and local government over land use regulations. The Goldblatt brothers owned and operated a dredging business that had been excavating below sea level for years before an ordinance was passed by the town of Hempstead prohibiting any excavation that created pits or water-filled holes below sea level due to safety concerns. The owners argued this regulation amounted to unconstitutional taking without compensation as it effectively shut down their operation which constituted nearly all value of their property. The court held that while the regulation did indeed limit how they could use their property, it didn't constitute 'taking' under Fifth Amendment because its purpose was not to appropriate private property for public use but rather regulate land usage in order to promote public welfare - specifically safety in this instance. Therefore, no compensation was required from the government despite significant economic impact on Goldblatts' business.

In the dissenting opinion for Goldblatt et al. v. Town of Hempstead, Justice Hugo Black argued that the ordinance in question was a clear violation of property rights and an overreach by local government. He contended that while it is within a town's power to regulate certain aspects of business operations for public safety or health reasons, this particular regulation went too far by effectively shutting down an ongoing business operation without any compelling evidence showing its necessity for protecting public welfare. The majority decision upheld the ordinance on grounds that it promoted community health and safety; however, Justice Black disagreed with their interpretation, arguing instead that such broad regulatory powers could lead to arbitrary restrictions on private businesses based purely on subjective judgments about what constitutes 'public good'. In his view, unless there was concrete proof demonstrating harm caused by these sand and gravel excavations - which he believed had not been sufficiently provided - then prohibiting them outright constituted an unjust deprivation of property rights under the Fifth Amendment.