In Memphis City v. Dean, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a city ordinance that prohibited the sale of liquor within the city limits was constitutional. The ordinance was challenged by a liquor dealer, 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 applied equally to all persons within the city limits. The Court also noted that the ordinance was a reasonable means of protecting the public health and safety, and that it did not infringe upon any fundamental rights. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the ordinance was a valid exercise of the city's police power, and that it did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court's decision affirmed the city's right to regulate the sale of liquor within its limits.

In Memphis City v. Dean, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a city ordinance that prohibited African Americans from living within certain areas of the city violated their constitutional rights. The majority opinion held that such an ordinance did not violate any constitutional rights because it only regulated where people lived and did not interfere with their right to pursue life, liberty or property. However, in his dissenting opinion Justice Field argued that this ordinance interfered with African American's fundamental right to move freely throughout the country as guaranteed by Article IV of the Constitution and thus should be declared unconstitutional. He further argued that while cities have some authority over zoning regulations they cannot use those powers to deny citizens equal protection under law which is what this particular ordinance attempted to do by singling out one race for special treatment.