In the case of Johnson, Jr., et al. v. Haydel et al., 1928, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a Louisiana state law that allowed for the seizure and sale of property due to unpaid taxes violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The plaintiffs were heirs who had inherited land from their father but failed to pay inheritance tax on it, leading to its seizure by local authorities. They argued that they were not given sufficient notice before this action was taken and thus their rights under due process were violated. The court ruled against them stating that while due process does require adequate notice be given before government action is taken which affects an individual’s property rights, in this case there had been no violation as notices about unpaid taxes and impending seizures are publicly posted according to state law - a practice considered acceptable at both federal and state level during those times.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Johnson, Jr., et al. v. Haydel et al., 1928 argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Louisiana law requiring public utilities to obtain approval from local authorities before discontinuing service was an infringement on contractual rights and violated due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissenters contended that such laws could potentially lead to arbitrary and unreasonable interference with private contracts, which would be unconstitutional. They also expressed concern about potential abuses of power by local authorities who might use their regulatory authority for personal or political gain rather than for protecting public welfare as intended by the law.