In the case of Saunders v. Shaw and The Board of Drainage Commissioners of the Bayou Terre-Aux-Boeufs Drainage District in 1916, plaintiff Saunders challenged a Louisiana law that allowed for drainage districts to be created by landowners without requiring consent from all affected parties. He argued this violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights as it deprived him of property without due process or just compensation. However, the Supreme Court ruled against him, upholding the state's right to create such districts if they serve a public purpose like preventing flooding or improving public health conditions. The court found that these benefits outweighed any potential harm caused by non-consensual land use changes, thus not violating constitutional protections.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Saunders v. Shaw and The Board of Drainage Commissioners of the Bayou Terre-Aux-Boeufs Drainage District argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings on similar matters. It contended that a drainage district should be considered a public corporation, not merely an area within which certain landowners have special privileges or obligations. Therefore, it should be subject to taxation under Louisiana law just like any other property owner in the state. The dissent also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "benefit," arguing that benefit from drainage improvements is not limited to increased agricultural productivity but can include improved health conditions and access to transportation among others. Thus, all properties within a drainage district receive some form of benefit and should pay taxes accordingly.