In the case of Taylor v. Anderson in 1913, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a Louisiana law that allowed for property seized by creditors to be sold without an appraisal violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The plaintiff, Taylor, argued that this practice deprived him of his property without due process and equal protection under the law because it enabled his creditor (Anderson) to purchase his land at a fraction of its value during a forced sale. The court ruled against Taylor with Justice Holmes delivering the opinion stating that while state laws must not transgress federal constitutional limitations, they are otherwise free to regulate their own affairs as long as there is no clear violation or conflict with federal laws or constitution. In this case, he found no such violation since Louisiana’s statute did not infringe on any federally protected right nor did it deny anyone equal protection under its terms. The decision upheld states' rights over local matters and reinforced judicial deference towards legislative judgment unless there is clear infringement upon constitutionally protected rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Taylor v. Anderson, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Louisiana law requiring separate railway cars for black and white passengers violated both the spirit and letter of the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissent contended that this ruling effectively sanctioned racial segregation, which is fundamentally incompatible with principles of equality under law. It further asserted that such laws were not genuinely intended to promote public welfare but rather served as instruments of racial discrimination. Additionally, it criticized the court's deference to state authority in matters involving civil rights protections, arguing instead for robust federal intervention against discriminatory practices at state level.