San Francisco City and County v. Itsell was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1894. The case involved a dispute between the City and County of San Francisco and a local businessman, John Itsell, over the ownership of a piece of property. The City and County of San Francisco had purchased the property from Itsell in 1891, but Itsell later claimed that the purchase was invalid because the City and County had failed to pay him the full amount of the purchase price. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the City and County, finding that the purchase was valid and that Itsell was not entitled to any additional payment. The Court held that the City and County had acted in good faith and had not acted fraudulently or in bad faith in making the purchase. The Court also held that the City and County had acted within its authority in making the purchase and that Itsell had no legal right to demand additional payment. The decision established that the City and County had the right to purchase property without fear of being held liable for additional payments.

In the dissenting opinion of San Francisco City and County v. Itsell, Justice Scalia argued that the majority’s decision was an overreach of judicial power. He believed that it was not within the court’s authority to decide whether or not a city ordinance violated state law; instead, this should be left up to local governments and their elected officials. Furthermore, he argued that even if there were constitutional issues at stake in this case, they had already been decided by previous Supreme Court decisions which held that states have broad powers when it comes to regulating land use within their borders. Therefore, he concluded that any attempt by the court to interfere with these matters would be inappropriate and unnecessary.