In the case of United States et al. v. Capital Transit Company et al., 1949, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a District of Columbia statute that required street railway companies to provide free transportation for police officers and firefighters violated the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against taking private property for public use without just compensation. The court held that this requirement did not constitute an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment because it could be seen as part of a regulatory scheme in which benefits were conferred on transit companies (such as exclusive rights-of-way) in exchange for certain obligations, including providing free rides to certain city employees while they are on duty. Therefore, no compensation was due from government authorities to these transport providers.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Capital Transit Company case argued that the Supreme Court should not have taken jurisdiction over this dispute, as it was essentially a local matter and did not involve any significant federal question. The dissenters believed that the majority's decision to intervene represented an unwarranted expansion of federal power into areas traditionally reserved for state and local governments. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of relevant statutes, arguing that these laws were intended to regulate interstate commerce rather than intrastate activities such as those involved in this case. Finally, they expressed concern about potential negative consequences of this ruling on future cases involving similar issues.