The City v. Babcock was a Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that an ordinance of the city of New York, prohibiting any person from keeping or operating a steam engine within certain limits without obtaining permission from the mayor and common council, did not violate either the Constitution of New York or that of the United States. The defendant argued that this ordinance violated his right to liberty and property as guaranteed by both constitutions. However, after considering all arguments presented by both sides, Chief Justice Chase concluded that since it was reasonable for local authorities to regulate such matters due to public safety concerns, no constitutional violation had occurred. Therefore, he held in favor of The City and against Babcock on all counts.

In City v. Babcock, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a city ordinance that prohibited any person from selling liquor within four miles of its limits violated the Constitution. The majority opinion held that it did not violate any constitutional rights and upheld the ordinance as valid. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that while cities have broad powers to regulate their affairs, they cannot pass laws which interfere with citizens' right to engage in lawful activities such as buying or selling alcohol without due process of law. He further stated that if an individual is engaging in a business activity which is otherwise legal under state law then he should be allowed to do so unless there are compelling reasons why it should be restricted by local government regulations.