In the case of New Orleans v. Fisher (1900), the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and taxation in Louisiana following changes to state law regarding tax collection procedures. The city of New Orleans had sold properties owned by John B. Fisher for unpaid taxes, which were then purchased by the city itself due to lack of other bidders. Later, when Fisher attempted to reclaim his properties, he was told that they now belonged to the city as per new laws passed after his original default on taxes but before his attempt at redemption. The court ruled in favor of Fisher stating that retroactive application of these new laws violated constitutional protections against ex post facto legislation and impairment of contracts under Article I Sections 9 and 10 respectively. It held that while states have broad powers to regulate property within their borders, such regulations must not infringe upon established contractual or property rights without due process.

In the dissenting opinion for New Orleans v. Fisher, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was an overreach of federal power and a violation of states' rights. He contended that Louisiana had acted within its constitutional authority in issuing bonds to fund public improvements, and thus it should not be held liable for repayment when those projects failed due to unforeseen circumstances beyond its control. Furthermore, he believed that allowing bondholders to sue the state in federal court undermined Louisiana's sovereignty and set a dangerous precedent by opening up states to potentially limitless liability claims from disgruntled investors. In his view, this case represented an unwarranted intrusion into matters best left to local authorities who are more familiar with their own needs and resources than distant federal judges.