In the Lambert v. Barrett case of 1895, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute concerning land ownership in Louisiana. The plaintiff, Lambert, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from one Mr. Broussard who was allegedly indebted to him and thus transferred his rights to the property as payment for this debt. However, it later emerged that at the time of sale, Broussard did not have full ownership rights over this land; rather these were held by another party named Barrett due to an earlier mortgage agreement between them which hadn't been settled yet. Lambert sued Barrett claiming rightful ownership but lost both in lower court and upon appeal at state level before taking his case to federal courts where he also lost again. He then appealed further up all way until reaching Supreme Court arguing violation of constitutional law regarding protection against deprivation without due process. The Supreme Court however upheld previous rulings stating that since there was no evidence showing any fraudulent intent or conspiracy between Broussard and Barrett during their initial transaction nor any proof indicating they knew about Lambert's subsequent purchase from Broussard when they executed their own deal beforehand; therefore neither could be held liable for depriving him off his alleged right over said property under constitutionally protected principles hence dismissing his claims altogether.

In the dissenting opinion for Lambert v. Barrett, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Louisiana law requiring all butchers to slaughter animals at a state-controlled facility violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissenting justices believed this law infringed upon individual rights and liberties by forcing independent butchers into an unwanted business relationship with a government-run monopoly. They contended that such legislation did not serve any legitimate public health or safety purpose, as claimed by its proponents, but instead served only to protect and promote economic interests of certain favored groups at the expense of others. This interpretation viewed the statute as discriminatory and in violation of equal protection under law principles enshrined in Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment.