In the 1952 case of Howard et al. v. Commissioners of the Sinking Fund of the City of Louisville et al., a group of African American homeowners challenged an urban renewal plan in Louisville, Kentucky that would have resulted in their displacement without compensation for their homes' full value. The plaintiffs argued that this violated their Fifth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection under law, as well as constituting racial discrimination since most affected residents were black. The Supreme Court ruled against them, finding no constitutional violation because they had been offered fair market value for their properties and there was no evidence to suggest racial discrimination was a motivating factor behind the redevelopment project. This decision effectively endorsed urban renewal programs which often disproportionately impacted minority communities across America during mid-20th century.

In the dissenting opinion for Howard et al. v. Commissioners of the Sinking Fund of the City of Louisville et al., Justice William O. Douglas argued that there was no constitutional basis to force a business owner to sell their property as a condition for obtaining permission to discontinue operations, which he viewed as an infringement on personal liberties protected by the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. He believed that such conditions were not related in any meaningful way to public health, safety or welfare concerns, but rather served merely as a means for local governments to acquire private properties at less than fair market value under threat of criminal prosecution - essentially amounting to coercion or extortion from his perspective.