In the 1941 case Jacob v. New York City, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property tax assessments. The petitioner, Jacob, owned real estate in New York City and argued that his properties were assessed at full value while other similar properties in the city were assessed at only a fraction of their value. This discrepancy resulted in an unequal distribution of tax burden which he claimed violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. However, the court ruled against him stating that it was not within its jurisdiction to interfere with state taxation systems unless there is clear transgression of constitutional rights or if there is such gross inequality as amounts to confiscation or arbitrary taking without due process of law.

In the dissenting opinion for Jacob v. New York City, the justice argued that the majority's decision to uphold a city ordinance prohibiting street peddling was an overreach of government power and violated individual liberties. The justice contended that there was no compelling public interest in banning such activities, as they were not inherently harmful or disruptive to society. Furthermore, he believed this ruling disproportionately affected low-income individuals who relied on street vending as their primary source of income. He also criticized the majority's reliance on police powers to justify their decision, arguing it set a dangerous precedent for future cases involving personal freedoms and economic rights. Overall, he felt this case represented an unnecessary intrusion into private lives by local authorities under the guise of maintaining order and protecting public welfare.