In the case of Jones et al. v. City of Portland in 1917, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a city ordinance that required street railway companies to sell seven tickets for a quarter violated the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause by depriving these companies of their property without just compensation. The plaintiffs argued that this regulation forced them to operate at an unsustainable loss and thus constituted an unconstitutional taking of private property for public use without fair compensation. However, the court ruled against them, stating that it is within a municipality’s power to regulate fares as long as they allow for reasonable returns on investments and do not result in confiscatory rates which would be considered unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

In the dissenting opinion for Jones et al. v. City of Portland, the justice argued that the city's ordinance requiring a permit to distribute literature on public streets was not an unconstitutional violation of free speech rights as claimed by plaintiffs. The justice contended that such regulation is necessary to prevent disorder and maintain public safety in crowded urban areas, where unregulated distribution could lead to littering or congestion problems. Furthermore, they asserted that this type of regulation does not suppress any particular message or viewpoint but merely regulates the time, place and manner of expression in order to balance individual rights with community interests. Therefore, according to their view, it should be considered a reasonable restriction within constitutional limits rather than an infringement on First Amendment rights.