In the case of Tulare Irrigation District v. Shepard in 1901, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a California law that allowed irrigation districts to levy and collect assessments on land for the purpose of paying off bonds issued by said district was constitutional. The plaintiff, Shepard, argued that this law violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights because it did not provide him due process or equal protection under the laws as he had no say in these assessments being levied against his property within an irrigation district where he owned land but did not reside. However, the court ruled against Shepard stating that such taxation is necessary for public improvements like irrigation systems which benefit all lands within a given area regardless if they are occupied or unoccupied; therefore upholding its constitutionality.

In the dissenting opinion for Tulare Irrigation District v. Shepard, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling - which allowed an irrigation district in California to levy taxes on landowners within its boundaries without their consent - violated principles of due process and equal protection under the law. The dissenting justices contended that this taxation scheme unfairly burdened certain property owners who derived no benefit from the irrigation system, while others reaped substantial benefits without having to pay any additional tax. They also expressed concern about potential abuses of power by local government entities like irrigation districts, suggesting that such bodies could use their taxing authority as a means of coercive control over private property rights. Ultimately, they believed that this case raised serious constitutional questions about individual liberty and governmental authority which were not adequately addressed by the majority's decision.