In the case of St. Louis Poster Advertising Company v. City of St. Louis et al., 1918, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city's right to regulate public advertising for aesthetic and safety reasons. The plaintiff, a billboard company, argued that an ordinance limiting billboards infringed on their property rights without due process or just compensation as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. However, Justice Willis Van Devanter writing for a unanimous court held that such regulations were within a municipality’s police power if they promoted public welfare and did not go beyond what was necessary to achieve this aim - in this case preserving aesthetics and ensuring traffic safety by reducing distractions caused by billboards.

The dissenting opinion in the case of St. Louis Poster Advertising Company v. City of St. Louis et al., 1918, argued that the ordinance passed by the city was not a reasonable exercise of police power and violated constitutional rights to freedom of speech and equal protection under law. The justice believed that while cities have a right to regulate businesses for public welfare, this particular regulation went beyond what is necessary or appropriate for maintaining safety and aesthetics in urban areas. He contended that it unfairly targeted billboard companies without sufficient justification, thereby infringing upon their property rights as well as free expression rights protected by First Amendment principles against government censorship or control over content disseminated through billboards.