In the case of Hayman v. City of Galveston et al., 1926, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a city ordinance that prohibited advertising on public property violated constitutional rights to free speech and equal protection under law. The plaintiff, Mr. Hayman, owned an advertising company and argued that his business was unfairly targeted by this ordinance while other businesses were allowed to advertise in public spaces without penalty. He also claimed that his First Amendment right to free speech had been infringed upon by this prohibition. The court ruled against Mr. Hayman stating that cities have the power to regulate commercial use of their streets for aesthetic or safety reasons as long as they do not discriminate between different types of businesses or messages in doing so. They found no evidence suggesting such discrimination existed within Galveston's enforcement practices nor did they find any violation of Mr.Hayman's First Amendment rights since he could still advertise elsewhere.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Hayman v. City of Galveston et al., 1926, argued that the city's decision to remove sand from a beach owned by Hayman did not constitute an unlawful taking under the Fifth Amendment. The justice contended that while it was true that the removal of sand had caused damage to Hayman's property, this action fell within the city’s police power as part of its efforts to protect public health and safety. Therefore, it should not be considered a violation of private property rights requiring compensation under eminent domain laws. Furthermore, he pointed out that there were no clear legal precedents indicating such actions amounted to unconstitutional takings without just compensation.