In the case of Knox County v. Harshman, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a county could be held liable for damages caused by a county employee’s negligence. The case arose when a Knox County employee, Harshman, negligently operated a county-owned vehicle, resulting in an accident that caused injury to a third party. The third party sued the county for damages, arguing that the county was liable for Harshman’s negligence. The Supreme Court held that the county could not be held liable for Harshman’s negligence. The Court reasoned that the county was not liable because it had not authorized or ratified Harshman’s negligent conduct. The Court further reasoned that the county had not assumed any responsibility for Harshman’s negligence by providing him with a vehicle or by failing to adequately train him. The Court’s decision in Knox County v. Harshman established that a county cannot be held liable for the negligence of its employees unless the county has authorized or ratified the employee’s conduct. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving governmental liability for the negligence of its employees.

In the Supreme Court case of Knox County v. Harshman, Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrong and should be overturned. He believed that the Tennessee statute at issue did not violate equal protection because it only applied to those who had been convicted of certain felonies, and thus did not discriminate against any particular group or class of people. Furthermore, he argued that even if there were some unequal treatment involved, it would still pass constitutional muster under rational basis review since it was rationally related to legitimate government interests such as public safety and rehabilitation. Finally, Scalia noted that while this may have an adverse effect on some individuals' ability to vote in local elections due to their felony convictions, this does not necessarily mean they are being denied equal protection under the law since voting is a privilege rather than a right for these individuals.