In the 1915 case of Hadacheck v. Sebastian, Chief of Police of Los Angeles, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a zoning ordinance in Los Angeles that prohibited brick manufacturing within city limits to protect residential areas from pollution and noise. The plaintiff, J.C. Hadacheck owned a brickyard which was operating before the ordinance was enacted but became illegal after its implementation due to its location within city limits. He argued that this law constituted an unconstitutional taking without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment as it essentially rendered his property valueless since he could no longer operate his business there. The court rejected this argument stating that while individual rights are important they should not infringe upon public welfare and safety regulations set by local governments for community benefit; hence such laws do not constitute a 'taking'. It held that police power can be used to limit use of property so long as it is reasonable and not arbitrary or discriminatory even if it causes financial loss to owners.

In the dissenting opinion for Hadacheck v. Sebastian, Justice McKenna expressed concern over the majority's decision to uphold a city ordinance that effectively shut down Mr. Hadacheck's brickyard business in Los Angeles. He argued that this was an excessive use of police power and amounted to confiscation without compensation, violating due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The justice pointed out that when Mr. Hadacheck purchased his property and established his business, it was outside city limits and there were no laws or regulations prohibiting its operation; only later did urban expansion surround his brickyard with residential areas leading to complaints about noise and dust pollution from neighbors which resulted in passing of restrictive ordinances by local authorities against such businesses within city limits. Justice McKenna believed these circumstances should have been taken into account before rendering a judgment which essentially deprived Mr.Hadacheck of using his property for any profitable purpose thereby significantly reducing its value - an action he considered as equivalent to taking away one’s property without just compensation – thus infringing upon constitutional protections provided by law.