In the 1914 case of Malloy v. State of South Carolina, the United States Supreme Court dealt with issues related to property rights and due process under law. The plaintiff, Malloy, had purchased a piece of land in Charleston that was later condemned by the state for public use as part of a street improvement plan. However, he argued that his constitutional rights were violated because he wasn't given an opportunity to contest this decision before it happened and didn't receive just compensation for his property loss. The court ruled against him stating that since there was no federal question involved in this matter - only local or state laws - they did not have jurisdiction over it. Furthermore, they found that Malloy's claim about not receiving fair compensation was invalid because he hadn't exhausted all available legal remedies at the state level first.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Malloy v. State of South Carolina argued that the majority's decision to allow a state to tax property owned by non-residents at a higher rate than residents was unconstitutional. The dissenting justices believed this violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees all citizens equal protection under law regardless of their residency status. They contended that it is unjust and discriminatory for states to impose heavier burdens on out-of-state property owners simply because they do not reside within its borders. Furthermore, they expressed concerns about potential repercussions if other states followed suit, leading to retaliatory taxation policies and creating an unfavorable environment for interstate commerce and investment.