In Rindge Company et al. v. County of Los Angeles, the U.S Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a California state law that allowed for the condemnation and taking of private property by local governments for public use under eminent domain. The case arose when Los Angeles County sought to construct a highway across land owned by Rindge Company and Frederick Hastings Rindge Co., who challenged this action as unconstitutional on both federal and state grounds. They argued that it violated their due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment because they were not given an opportunity to be heard before their property was taken, among other reasons. The court rejected these arguments, ruling that there is no constitutional requirement for judicial proceedings prior to exercising eminent domain powers provided just compensation is offered; legislative determination suffices in such cases if it deems public necessity requires it. It also held that while individual states have discretion over how they exercise eminent domain within their jurisdiction, they cannot infringe upon federally protected rights in doing so.

In the dissenting opinion for Rindge Company et al. v. County of Los Angeles, Justice McReynolds argued that the majority's decision to allow Los Angeles County to exercise its power of eminent domain and seize private property was a violation of due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. He contended that there were other feasible routes available for constructing a highway which would not have required infringing upon private property rights, and thus he believed it was unnecessary for the county to resort to such extreme measures. Furthermore, he expressed concern about setting a dangerous precedent where local governments could easily override individual property rights without sufficient justification or consideration for alternative solutions.