In the case of Simmons et ux. v. West Haven Housing Authority, 1969, the plaintiffs challenged a Connecticut statute that allowed housing authorities to take private property for public use without just compensation. The Supreme Court held that this was not in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause because it did not deprive individuals of their property without due process of law. The court reasoned that while eminent domain does involve taking private property for public use, it is done so under legal authority and with proper procedures followed - including notice and an opportunity to be heard on issues such as valuation and necessity - thus satisfying requirements for procedural due process.

In the dissenting opinion for Simmons et ux. v. West Haven Housing Authority, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to invalidate a state statute on grounds of vagueness was unjustified and inconsistent with previous rulings by the Court. He contended that there were no constitutional issues involved in this case as it pertained to a local housing authority's power to evict tenants for "objectionable conduct." He believed that such terms are commonly understood and do not require precise definition or specification in every instance. Furthermore, he asserted that if any ambiguity did exist, it should be resolved through judicial interpretation rather than invalidating an entire statute. In his view, the majority had overstepped its bounds by substituting its judgment for legislative intent without sufficient justification.