In the case of Roberts v. Richland Irrigation District et al., 1932, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a Washington state law that allowed irrigation districts to levy assessments on land within their boundaries violated the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. The plaintiff, Mr. Roberts, argued that his property was assessed at an unfair value and he had no opportunity for a hearing before being taxed by the district. The court ruled in favor of Richland Irrigation District stating that there were sufficient opportunities for hearings during assessment proceedings and thus did not violate due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

In the dissenting opinion for Roberts v. Richland Irrigation District et al., Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to allow a state irrigation district to default on its bonds without offering bondholders any recourse was fundamentally unfair and violated constitutional principles of due process. He contended that when an entity uses public funds, it should be held accountable for its financial obligations just like any private corporation or individual would be. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Washington State law regarding irrigation districts' ability to levy taxes in order to pay off their debts, arguing that such laws were intended as a safeguard against defaults rather than as a means of enabling them. In his view, allowing this type of default not only undermined faith in government-issued securities but also set a dangerous precedent by suggesting that governments could simply ignore their financial responsibilities whenever they became inconvenient.