In the 1970 case Palmer v. City of Euclid, Ohio, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a zoning dispute. The petitioner, Charles F. Palmer and his company had purchased land in Euclid to build an industrial park but were prevented from doing so by local zoning laws that designated the area for single-family homes only. They argued that this was unconstitutional as it violated their right to use their property as they saw fit and deprived them of equal protection under law since similar restrictions weren't applied uniformly across all properties in Euclid. However, the court upheld these zoning ordinances stating that they were within the city's power to regulate land use for public welfare purposes such as maintaining neighborhood character or preventing overcrowding. It ruled against Palmer saying he failed to prove any discriminatory application of these laws or provide evidence showing how they caused him substantial economic harm.

In the dissenting opinion for Palmer v. City of Euclid, Ohio (1970), it was argued that zoning laws should not be used to discriminate against certain types of housing or residents. The dissenting justices believed that the city's zoning ordinance, which prohibited multi-family dwellings in a particular area, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it discriminated against those who could not afford single-family homes. They also disagreed with majority’s view on “police power” and its application in this case; they felt that such powers should only be used to promote public health, safety and general welfare but not as an instrument for economic discrimination. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies within the law itself – while apartment buildings were banned due to their supposed negative impact on community character and property values, other potentially disruptive establishments like hospitals or schools were allowed. This indicated an arbitrary use of authority by local government officials rather than a genuine concern for public welfare.