In the case of United States v. City of Fulton et al., 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over sewage treatment between the federal government and several municipalities in New York State, including Fulton. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had granted funds to these municipalities for improving their sewage treatment facilities under provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. However, when it was discovered that some cities were not complying with EPA regulations regarding wastewater discharge into navigable waters, legal action was taken by the federal government to recover its grants from those non-compliant entities. The court ruled in favor of the United States stating that while Congress did intend for local governments to improve their water pollution control measures using federal funding; this support wasn't unconditional or without oversight. If recipients failed to comply with stipulated conditions such as meeting specific standards or deadlines set by EPA then they risked losing their financial assistance. This decision underscored how important compliance is within federally funded programs and highlighted governmental authority's ability to enforce environmental protection laws even at a local level.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. City of Fulton et al., 1985 case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a federal law prohibiting discrimination against individuals with disabilities was an overreach of congressional power under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The dissenters believed that Congress did not have sufficient evidence to justify such a broad application of its powers, and they were concerned about potential violations of states' rights. They also felt that there was no clear connection between discriminatory practices by local governments and any negative impact on interstate commerce, which is typically required for Congress to exercise its authority in this way. Furthermore, they questioned whether it was appropriate for federal courts to be involved in what could essentially be considered local zoning disputes.