In City of Richmond v. Smith, 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 city of Richmond had passed the ordinance in an effort to reduce public drunkenness and other related problems. The Supreme Court held that the ordinance was constitutional, finding that the city had the power to regulate the sale of alcohol within its limits. The Court noted that the ordinance was a reasonable exercise of the city's police power, and that it was not in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also noted that the ordinance was not an unreasonable restriction on the right to sell alcohol, as it did not prohibit the sale of alcohol altogether. The Court's decision in City of Richmond v. Smith established that cities have the power to regulate the sale of alcohol within their limits, and that such regulations are not in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and has been used to uphold similar ordinances in other cities.

In the case of City of Richmond v. Smith, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a city ordinance that prohibited African Americans from engaging in certain occupations violated their constitutional rights. The majority opinion held that such an ordinance did not violate any constitutional protections and could be enforced by local governments. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause should protect African Americans' right to pursue lawful occupations without discrimination based on race or color. He argued further that if cities were allowed to pass ordinances like this one which discriminated against people based on race or color then it would lead to "degradation and oppression" for those affected by them. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that allowing such ordinances would undermine the spirit of equality enshrined in the Constitution and thus should be struck down as unconstitutional.