In the case of Opelika City v. Daniel, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a city ordinance that prohibited the sale of alcohol within the city limits was constitutional. The defendant, Daniel, had been convicted of violating the ordinance and was appealing the conviction. 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, which is the power of a state or local government to regulate activities within its jurisdiction for the public health, safety, and welfare. The Court noted that the ordinance was a reasonable exercise of the city's police power and did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights. The Court also held that the ordinance was not an unconstitutional infringement on the defendant's right to engage in a lawful business. The Court noted that the ordinance was a valid exercise of the city's police power and did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the ordinance was a valid exercise of the city's police power and did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights. The Court affirmed the conviction of the defendant and upheld the ordinance.

In the case of Opelika City v. Daniel, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a city ordinance that imposed an annual tax on all persons engaged in business within its limits was constitutional. The majority opinion held that such a tax did not violate any provision of the Constitution and could be enforced by the city. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that while it may be true that cities have broad authority to impose taxes for public purposes, they cannot do so without regard for fundamental principles of justice and fairness. He argued further that since there is no way to determine how much money each person should pay based on their individual circumstances or ability to pay, such taxation would amount to arbitrary discrimination against certain individuals who are unable to bear their share of the burden equally with others. Therefore he concluded that such taxation violated both due process and equal protection under law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment and must be struck down as unconstitutional.