In the case of Rorick et al. v. Board of Commissioners of Everglades Drainage District et al., 1938, landowners in Florida's Everglades Drainage District challenged a tax assessment by the district's board on their lands for drainage improvements. The Supreme Court ruled that due process was not violated when the board assessed taxes based on benefits received from drainage improvements rather than property value. It held that it is within states' rights to levy such assessments and that courts should defer to legislative judgments about public benefit unless they are clearly erroneous or arbitrary. Furthermore, it found no evidence suggesting an abuse of discretion or violation of equal protection principles in this case as all properties benefited were taxed proportionately according to estimated benefits.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Rorick et al. v. Board of Comm'rs of Everglades Drainage Dist. et al., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Florida statute allowing for taxation on landowners within a drainage district was unconstitutional, as it violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissent contended that this tax was levied without giving landowners an opportunity to challenge their individual assessments or argue against them before they were finalized and imposed by authorities, thus denying them procedural fairness and justice. Furthermore, they believed that such taxes should be based on benefits received from improvements rather than just property ownership within a designated area; otherwise, it would amount to arbitrary and discriminatory imposition which is not permissible under constitutional law principles.