In Lindsey et al. v. Normet et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a case involving Oregon's Forcible Entry and Wrongful Detainer (FED) statute, which allowed landlords to evict tenants within six days if they failed to pay rent or violated their lease agreement in any way. The plaintiffs argued that this law was unconstitutional as it denied them due process and equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by favoring landlords over tenants in eviction proceedings. However, the court disagreed with these claims and upheld the constitutionality of Oregon's FED statute by a 5-4 vote. They stated that while housing is an important commodity, it does not constitute a fundamental right protected under constitutional scrutiny standards applied for alleged violations of equal protection clause. The court also held that there was no violation of procedural due process because defendants were given notice and opportunity to be heard before being evicted; hence, they did not find any bias towards landlords in eviction cases.

In the dissenting opinion for Lindsey et al. v. Normet et al., Justice William O. Douglas argued that Oregon's Forcible Entry and Wrongful Detainer (FED) statute, which allowed landlords to evict tenants with only a 72-hour notice, was unconstitutional as it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. He contended that this law unfairly favored landlords over tenants by providing an expedited eviction process without giving sufficient time or opportunity for tenants to prepare their defense adequately in court proceedings. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's view on housing rights, asserting that access to decent shelter should be considered a fundamental right under U.S constitution due to its essential role in human dignity and well-being.