In the case of L'Hote v. New Orleans in 1899, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute between property owners and the city of New Orleans over an ordinance that required all buildings to be constructed with fireproof materials. The plaintiffs argued that this law was unconstitutional as it violated their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by depriving them of their property without due process of law and denying them equal protection under laws. However, the court held that such regulations were within a municipality's police power if they were enacted for public safety purposes. Therefore, it upheld New Orleans' right to enforce its building code requiring fireproof construction materials despite objections from local property owners who claimed it infringed upon their constitutional rights.

In the dissenting opinion for L'Hote v. New Orleans, Justice John Marshall Harlan argued that the majority's decision was a violation of individual rights protected by the Constitution. He contended that while states have broad powers to regulate businesses and industries within their borders, these powers should not infrive on personal liberties or property rights without due process of law. In this case, he believed that New Orleans' ordinance requiring all freight handlers to be licensed and join a certain union was an overreach of government authority because it interfered with individuals' right to freely contract labor and services. This kind of regulation, according to him, could lead down a slippery slope where governments might dictate who citizens must employ or do business with in other sectors as well - something he saw as fundamentally incompatible with American principles of liberty and free enterprise.