In the 1903 case of Sinclair v. District of Columbia, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the District, upholding its right to enforce regulations on building construction and maintenance. The appellant, Mr. Sinclair, was a property owner who had been fined by local authorities for failing to comply with an ordinance requiring him to pave his sidewalk with cement or asphalt. He argued that this regulation was unreasonable and violated his constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause because it did not allow for other suitable materials like brick or stone. However, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., writing for a unanimous court, rejected these arguments stating that such regulatory powers were essential functions of government aimed at promoting public safety and welfare. The court held that as long as there is some reasonable basis for such regulations they do not violate due process rights even if they may seem inconvenient or burdensome to certain individuals.

In the dissenting opinion for Sinclair v. District of Columbia, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to uphold a law prohibiting alcohol sales on Sundays was an unconstitutional violation of religious freedom. He contended that this law was not a legitimate exercise of police power because it did not protect public health, safety or morals but instead imposed Christian beliefs about Sunday as a day of rest onto all citizens regardless of their personal religious convictions. Harlan believed this violated the First Amendment's protection against laws respecting an establishment of religion and its guarantee for free exercise thereof. Furthermore, he asserted that such laws could lead to further government intrusion into individual liberties under the guise of protecting public welfare.