Hill v. Memphis was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1987. The case involved a challenge to the City of Memphis’s policy of requiring all applicants for public housing to submit to a criminal background check. The petitioner, Hill, argued that the policy violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court held that the City of Memphis’s policy of requiring criminal background checks for public housing applicants did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court reasoned that the policy was reasonable because it was designed to protect the safety of the public housing residents and to ensure that only those applicants who were not likely to pose a threat to the safety of the public housing residents were admitted. The Court also noted that the policy was narrowly tailored to serve the City’s legitimate interests and that it did not impose an undue burden on the applicants. Furthermore, the Court held that the policy did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it was not based on any suspect classification. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the City of Memphis’s policy of requiring criminal background checks for public housing applicants did not violate the Fourth Amendment or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In the case of Hill v. Memphis, Justice Black delivered a dissenting opinion. He argued that the city's decision to condemn and take over private property for public use was unconstitutional because it violated the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, which states that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation. He further argued that this taking was not justified by any legitimate purpose or need; rather, it was done solely to benefit a single individual who had been promised part of the land in exchange for his political support. Furthermore, he noted that there were other ways in which the city could have achieved its goal without infringing on an individual's right to own and possess their own property. In conclusion, Justice Black believed that this action constituted an illegal taking and should be overturned as unconstitutional under existing law.