In the case of City of Memphis et al. v. Greene et al., 1980, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city's decision to close a public street that had previously provided access between a predominantly white neighborhood and an adjacent predominantly black neighborhood. The residents from both neighborhoods filed suit against this closure, alleging it was racially motivated and violated their constitutional rights under the Equal Protection Clause of Fourteenth Amendment as well as federal civil rights laws. However, after examining evidence presented by both parties, including traffic studies and safety concerns raised by local residents prior to closure decision, court found no discriminatory intent behind city's action. It held that mere disproportionate impact on one racial group does not prove discrimination unless there is clear proof showing such intentionality in government’s action.

In the dissenting opinion for City of Memphis et al. v. Greene et al., Justice Marshall, joined by Justice Brennan and Justice Blackmun, argued that the majority had failed to fully consider the racial implications of closing a public street in a predominantly black neighborhood. He contended that this action was not merely an innocuous traffic regulation but rather represented a racially discriminatory policy designed to physically segregate white homeowners from their black neighbors. The dissent further criticized the majority's narrow interpretation of Section 1982, arguing it should be broadly construed to prohibit all forms of racial discrimination related to property rights - including those involving public streets and facilities. They also disagreed with the majority's conclusion that residents did not suffer any loss in property value due to closure; instead they believed there was substantial evidence indicating such harm existed.