In the case of Petrie et al. v. Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District, 1918, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not an irrigation district in Idaho had the right to levy taxes on landowners within its boundaries for maintenance costs associated with a federal reclamation project. The plaintiffs argued that they should not be taxed because their lands were not directly benefited by this particular project as required under state law. However, the court ruled in favor of Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District stating that it is permissible for them to tax all landowners within their jurisdiction regardless if they benefit from specific projects or not since these assessments are necessary for overall operation and maintenance of irrigation systems which indirectly benefits everyone within those districts.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Petrie et al. v. Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District argued that the majority's decision to uphold Idaho's law allowing irrigation districts to levy assessments on landowners was incorrect. The dissent contended that this law violated property owners' due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, as it did not provide them with sufficient notice or opportunity to contest these assessments before they were imposed. Furthermore, it was argued that such a system unfairly burdened landowners who received little benefit from irrigation projects while benefiting those who gained significantly from them disproportionately. This, according to the dissenters, amounted to an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation.