In the case of Quinn et al. v. Millsap et al., 1988, a group of Missouri taxpayers challenged the constitutionality of their state's Board of Freeholders, which was responsible for proposing changes to local government structure in St. Louis and its surrounding county. The board consisted only of property owners, excluding non-property-owning residents from participation - an arrangement that plaintiffs argued violated the Equal Protection Clause under Fourteenth Amendment rights due to this discrimination based on wealth status. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, agreeing that such exclusionary practices were unconstitutional as they created unjustifiable wealth or property ownership requirements for participating in a significant governmental process. This decision reinforced principles against economic discrimination within political processes and emphasized equal protection rights regardless one's financial circumstances.

In the dissenting opinion for Quinn et al. v. Millsap et al., Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the majority's decision to strike down Missouri's constitutional provision was an overreach of judicial power, asserting it interfered with states' rights to determine their own political structures. He contended that there was no violation of Equal Protection Clause as all citizens had equal opportunity to participate in the selection process and serve on the board if they met qualifications set by state law - owning real or personal property within Missouri worth at least $1,000. Scalia also pointed out inconsistencies in how courts treated different types of discrimination, arguing economic discrimination should not be scrutinized as heavily as racial or gender-based discrimination under Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence.