In the 1932 case Mosher v. City of Phoenix, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city, upholding its right to enforce zoning laws that restricted certain types of businesses from operating within specific areas. The plaintiff, Mr. Mosher, owned a laundry business and argued that these restrictions violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights by depriving him of property without due process and equal protection under law. However, the court found no violation as it held that such regulations were part of a city's police power for promoting public welfare and did not infrally upon individual property rights or liberty interests protected by Constitution unless they were arbitrary or unreasonable.

In the dissenting opinion for Mosher v. City of Phoenix, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a city ordinance prohibiting door-to-door solicitation without prior consent violated constitutional rights. The dissenting justices believed that this law infringed upon freedom of speech and press as protected by the First Amendment. They contended that such ordinances could be used to suppress unpopular views or ideas, thus undermining democratic principles. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view that door-to-door solicitation constituted an invasion of privacy; instead, they saw it as a legitimate means of communication and dissemination of information in society. In their view, any potential annoyance caused by such activities did not justify limiting fundamental freedoms.