In the case of Rouse v. Hornsby, 1895, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state law that allowed for the seizure and sale of property to satisfy tax debts violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiff, Rouse, argued that his property had been unlawfully seized and sold by Hornsby (a tax collector) without proper notice or opportunity to contest it in court. However, after reviewing Alabama's laws regarding taxation procedures at that time - which required public notice before any such action could be taken - as well as evidence presented during trial proceedings showing compliance with these requirements on part of Hornsby; the court ruled against Rouse. They concluded there was no violation of due process rights since adequate provisions were made for taxpayers to challenge assessments prior to seizure or sale actions being initiated by authorities.

In the dissenting opinion for Rouse v. Hornsby, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Mississippi law prohibiting interracial marriages was inconsistent with previous Supreme Court rulings and violated constitutional principles of equal protection under the law. The dissenting justices contended that marriage is a fundamental right and states should not be allowed to restrict this right based on race. They also pointed out that such laws were rooted in racial prejudice and served no legitimate state interest. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that upholding these laws would promote peace and harmony within society, arguing instead that they perpetuated inequality and division.