Moses v. The Mayor was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1872. The case involved a dispute between a tenant and a landlord in the District of Columbia. The tenant, Moses, had been renting a house from the landlord, the Mayor, for several years. The Mayor had recently decided to increase the rent, and Moses refused to pay the increased amount. The Mayor then brought a suit against Moses for the unpaid rent. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Moses, finding that the Mayor had no legal authority to increase the rent. The Court held that the Mayor had no power to make such a change without the approval of the District of Columbia's legislative body. The Court also noted that the Mayor had failed to provide Moses with any notice of the rent increase, and thus had violated Moses' due process rights. The Court's decision in Moses v. The Mayor established an important precedent for tenants' rights in the District of Columbia. The ruling affirmed that tenants have the right to receive notice of any changes to their rental agreements, and that landlords cannot unilaterally increase rent without the approval of the local legislative body. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since, and has helped to ensure that tenants in the District of Columbia are treated fairly.

In the case of Moses v. The Mayor, Chief Justice Waite delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision to uphold an ordinance passed by the city council of Washington D.C., prohibiting African Americans from selling goods or services on public streets and sidewalks without a license, was unconstitutional. He reasoned that this law violated both the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, as well as Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment which guarantees all citizens equal protection under law regardless of race or color. Furthermore, Chief Justice Waite argued that while it is within Congress' power to regulate commerce between states and with foreign nations through legislation such as licensing requirements for certain professions; it does not have authority to pass laws regulating local trade within cities like Washington D.C.. As such he concluded that this ordinance should be struck down because it violates fundamental constitutional rights guaranteed by both amendments mentioned above