In the case of Norwood v. Baker in 1898, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a local government's use of eminent domain to seize private property for public use must be limited to legitimate public purposes and not used as a tool for benefiting particular private parties. The court held that while governments have broad powers under eminent domain, these powers are not unlimited. In this case, the city of Norwood had attempted to take over land owned by Mr. Baker with plans to turn it into a roadway which was deemed unnecessary and only beneficial to certain individuals rather than serving any real public purpose or necessity. This decision established an important precedent limiting governmental power under eminent domain and protecting individual property rights against arbitrary state action.

In the dissenting opinion for Norwood v. Baker, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was a dangerous expansion of government power and an infringement on individual property rights. He contended that the city of Norwood had no right to take private property for public use without just compensation under eminent domain laws, especially when it served more as a benefit to private corporations than to the general public. Harlan believed this ruling could set a precedent where local governments could seize land arbitrarily or unfairly favor certain businesses or individuals over others in their decisions about how and when to exercise their powers of eminent domain. This would be contrary to constitutional principles designed to protect citizens from such abuses by state authorities.