In the case of St. John v. New York in 1905, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving taxation and property rights. The plaintiff, St. John, was an owner of bonds issued by various counties within Kansas which were exempt from taxation under state law at the time they were purchased. However, later changes to legislation allowed for these bonds to be taxed in New York where St.John resided and held them as personal property. St.John argued that this violated his constitutional rights because it impaired contractual obligations and denied him equal protection under the laws since other forms of securities remained tax-exempt while his did not. The court rejected these arguments stating that there was no contract between bondholders and states guaranteeing perpetual tax exemption; therefore no impairment occurred when legislative changes permitted such taxes later on. Furthermore, it found no violation of equal protection principles as different types of securities could reasonably be treated differently for tax purposes based on their nature or characteristics without necessarily constituting unfair discrimination.

In the dissenting opinion for St. John v. New York, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was a violation of property rights protected by the 14th Amendment. He maintained that it was unconstitutional for a state to take private property without just compensation and due process of law, even if it is done in an attempt to promote public health or safety. In this case, he believed that New York had unjustly taken away St. John's right to use his land as he saw fit by prohibiting him from operating a stone quarry on his own property under its police powers without providing any compensation whatsoever.