This Supreme Court case involved Alexander B. Shankland, the plaintiff in error, and The Mayor, Aldermen and Common Council of Washington (the defendants in error). Shankland had been arrested for failing to pay a fine imposed by the city council of Washington. He argued that his arrest was illegal because he had not received proper notice before being taken into custody. The court ruled that while it is true that due process requires adequate notice prior to an arrest or other legal action against an individual, this particular case did not require such notification since Shankland's offense was considered minor enough to be classified as a "petty crime." Furthermore, they found no evidence that any harm came from his lack of knowledge about the impending penalty. Therefore, they concluded that there was no violation of due process rights on behalf of either party and dismissed the complaint filed by Shankland against the city council.

In Alexander B. Shankland v. The Mayor, Aldermen and Common Council of Washington, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a municipal corporation had the authority to levy taxes on individuals for public works projects without their consent or approval. In this case, Mr. Shankland argued that such taxation was unconstitutional as it violated his right to due process under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. However, in a 5-4 decision by Chief Justice Marshall delivered on behalf of himself and four other justices (Thompson, Story, Baldwin and Trimble), it was held that municipalities have broad powers when it comes to levying taxes for public works projects; these powers are not limited by constitutional provisions like those found in the Bill of Rights which protect individual rights from government interference or infringement upon them unless there is an express grant from Congress allowing such action. Thusly, while dissenting Justices McLean and Johnson argued that taxation without consent should be prohibited because it violates fundamental principles enshrined within our nation’s founding documents – namely those protecting private property rights – they were ultimately overruled by Chief Justice Marshall who declared that local governments do indeed possess wide latitude when exercising their taxing power so long as no specific provision exists prohibiting them from doing so otherwise