In State of Louisiana ex rel. Folsom v. Mayor and Administrators of New Orleans, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether the state of Louisiana had the right to sue the city of New Orleans for damages resulting from the city's failure to comply with a state law. The state of Louisiana had passed a law requiring the city of New Orleans to pay a certain amount of money to the state for the purpose of constructing a levee system. The city of New Orleans had failed to comply with the law, and the state of Louisiana sought to recover the money it was owed. The Supreme Court held that the state of Louisiana had the right to sue the city of New Orleans for damages resulting from the city's failure to comply with the state law. The Court reasoned that the state had a legitimate interest in protecting its citizens from the potential harm caused by the city's failure to comply with the law. Furthermore, the Court held that the state had the right to sue the city for damages because the state had a legitimate interest in ensuring that its laws were followed. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state of Louisiana had the right to sue the city of New Orleans for damages resulting from the city's failure to comply with a state law. The Court reasoned that the state had a legitimate interest in protecting its citizens from the potential harm caused by the city's failure to comply with the law, and that the state had the right to sue the city for damages because the state had a legitimate interest in ensuring that its laws were followed.

In the case of State of Louisiana ex rel. Folsom v. Mayor and Administrators of New Orleans, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had misconstrued the law regarding municipal corporations and their power to contract debts. He believed that under Louisiana law, municipalities were not authorized to incur debt without legislative approval or by referendum vote from citizens; however, this was not taken into consideration by the majority decision. Furthermore, he argued that even if there was an implied authority for cities to borrow money on behalf of its citizens as long as it did not exceed certain limits set forth in state laws, such borrowing should be done with caution due to potential financial consequences for taxpayers who are ultimately responsible for repayment. In conclusion, Justice Field disagreed with his colleagues' ruling because it failed to take into account important legal principles related to municipal debt obligations and could potentially lead local governments down a path towards fiscal irresponsibility at taxpayer expense.