In the case of Hill, Attorney General of Texas v. Stone et al., 1974, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a challenge to a Texas law that allowed only property owners to vote in bond elections. The court held that this restriction was unconstitutional as it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The state argued that since these bonds would be repaid through property taxes, only those who owned taxable real estate had an interest in such elections and thus should have exclusive voting rights. However, by a 6-3 majority decision delivered by Justice Thurgood Marshall, the court rejected this argument stating that non-property owners also had significant interests at stake including potential rent increases or changes in public services funded by these bonds. Therefore excluding them from voting was unjustifiable discrimination.

In the dissenting opinion for Hill v. Stone, Justice Rehnquist argued that Texas' system of property taxation did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. He contended that there was a rational basis for Texas to tax only those who owned real property worth $5,000 or more as they were likely better able to pay taxes than those with less valuable properties. Furthermore, he pointed out that this classification scheme had been in place since 1868 and suggested it would be inappropriate for the court to overturn such a long-standing practice based on its own policy preferences rather than constitutional principles. He also disagreed with majority's reliance on cases involving voting rights and school funding, arguing these were not directly applicable because they involved fundamental rights while owning taxable property is not a fundamental right under Constitution.