In the case of King Manufacturing Company v. City Council of Augusta et al., 1927, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a city ordinance that required businesses to obtain a license and pay an annual tax was constitutional. The King Manufacturing Company, which operated in Augusta, Georgia, argued that this requirement infringed on their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause because it imposed unequal burdens on different types of businesses. However, the court ruled against them stating that municipalities have broad powers to regulate local affairs and protect public welfare including levying taxes or requiring licenses for certain activities within their jurisdiction. Therefore, as long as these regulations do not violate any specific provisions of state or federal law (which they did not in this case), they are generally upheld by courts.

The dissenting opinion in the case of King Manufacturing Company v. City Council of Augusta argued that the city council's decision to deny a license for operating a brickyard within city limits was not an arbitrary exercise of power, but rather a reasonable measure taken to protect public health and welfare. The justice emphasized that local authorities are best suited to make such determinations based on their intimate knowledge of local conditions and needs. He also pointed out that courts should be cautious about interfering with these decisions unless they clearly overstep constitutional boundaries or violate fundamental rights. In this particular case, he believed there was no evidence suggesting either scenario had occurred; hence, he disagreed with the majority's ruling against the city council.