In Riggan v. Virginia, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a case involving an individual who was convicted for refusing to leave a restaurant after being asked by the owner. The defendant argued that his conviction violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause because he was denied service based on race. However, the court upheld his conviction stating that private property owners have the right to choose their customers and can ask anyone to leave if they wish so long as it does not violate any federal laws or regulations. This ruling emphasized that while discrimination is illegal in public accommodations due to Civil Rights Act of 1964, this law doesn't extend its protection against racial discrimination by privately owned establishments unless there are substantial ties with interstate commerce.

The dissenting opinion in the Riggan v. Virginia case argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings of the Supreme Court, particularly those concerning due process and equal protection under law. The dissent emphasized that a state cannot deny an individual their constitutional rights based on arbitrary or discriminatory classifications such as race, religion, or political affiliation. It also stressed that it is not within a state's power to determine which individuals are deserving of certain rights; this determination should be made by federal courts according to established legal principles and precedents. Furthermore, it contended that denying someone their right to vote because they have been convicted of a crime is both unjust and unconstitutional since voting is one of the most fundamental democratic rights protected by the Constitution.