In the 1911 case of Kiernan v. Portland, Oregon, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and city ordinances. The plaintiff, Kiernan, owned land in Portland that was subject to flooding due to its low elevation relative to surrounding areas. To mitigate this issue, he built a dike around his property without obtaining permission from the city authorities or complying with local regulations regarding such constructions. When the City of Portland ordered him to remove it as it violated an ordinance prohibiting any obstruction in streets or public places that could impede drainage systems and cause water accumulation on neighboring properties; Kiernan refused and sued instead. The court ruled against Kiernan stating that while individuals have certain rights concerning their private property use; these are not absolute when they conflict with valid municipal regulations designed for general welfare purposes like flood control measures here which were deemed reasonable by courts below too hence upheld by Supreme Court also thereby affirming lower courts' decisions ordering removal of said dike.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Kiernan v. Portland, Oregon argued that the city's ordinance, which prohibited laundry businesses from operating at night within certain districts, was unconstitutional. The justice believed that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause because it discriminated against Chinese immigrants who predominantly ran these businesses. He also contended that there was no substantial health or safety concern to justify such a restriction on working hours and therefore deemed this as an arbitrary exercise of power by local authorities. Furthermore, he pointed out inconsistencies in how different types of businesses were treated under similar circumstances and questioned whether this law truly served public interest or merely catered to private prejudices.