In Lewis v. City of Shreveport, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a city ordinance that prohibited the sale of alcoholic beverages was constitutional. The ordinance was challenged by a local tavern owner, who argued that the ordinance violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court held that the ordinance was constitutional. The Court reasoned that the ordinance was a valid exercise of the city's police power, and that it did not violate the Equal Protection Clause because it was not based on any classification of persons. The Court also noted that the ordinance was not overly broad, and that it was not an unreasonable exercise of the city's police power. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the ordinance was constitutional, and that it did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court's decision was unanimous.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Lewis v. City of Shreveport, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be overturned. He argued that a city ordinance which prohibited African Americans from entering into contracts with white persons for labor or services violated both the Thirteenth Amendment and Section 1977 of the Revised Statutes, as it constituted involuntary servitude. Justice Field noted that while Congress had not specifically addressed this issue in its legislation, it had been impliedly authorized to do so by virtue of its power to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment through appropriate legislation. Furthermore, he argued that since Section 1977 did not explicitly prohibit such ordinances, there was no reason why Congress could not have intended to include them within its scope when enacting said section. As such, Justice Field concluded that if Congress had indeed intended to prohibit these types of ordinances then they would fall under Section 1977 and thus be invalidated by this Court’s ruling; however since no explicit prohibition existed at present then any attempt on behalf of this Court to declare them unconstitutional would constitute an unwarranted extension of Congressional authority beyond what is provided for in existing law.