The Hancock v. City of Muskogee case in 1918 involved a dispute over the validity of an ordinance passed by the city council of Muskogee, Oklahoma that required all residents to connect their properties to the city's sewer system and pay for its use. The plaintiffs, who were property owners in Muskogee, challenged this ordinance on constitutional grounds claiming it was an unlawful taking without just compensation and violated due process rights under Fourteenth Amendment. However, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of such ordinances stating that they fall within police power exercised by municipalities for public health purposes. The court ruled that requiring property owners to connect with municipal utilities like sewers does not constitute a physical invasion or appropriation of private property but is rather a regulation compelling them to perform certain actions necessary for public welfare.

In the dissenting opinion for Hancock et al. v. City of Muskogee, Oklahoma, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a city ordinance prohibiting pool halls from operating on Sundays violated constitutional rights and exceeded local government powers. The dissenting justices contended that such an ordinance was not within the scope of police power as it did not protect public health, safety or morals but rather imposed religious observances upon citizens by enforcing Sunday closure laws. They also pointed out inconsistencies in applying this law only to pool halls while other businesses were allowed to operate freely on Sundays. This selective enforcement suggested discrimination against certain types of business without any rational basis related to public welfare objectives which they believed contravened principles of equal protection under law.