In the 1901 U.S. Supreme Court case Waite v. Santa Cruz, the court examined a dispute over property rights and taxation in California. The plaintiff, Charles B. Waite, contested that he was wrongfully taxed by the city of Santa Cruz on his property which included a hotel and its furnishings as well as other personal properties within city limits. He argued that these taxes were unconstitutional under both state law and federal law because they violated his right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment since similar properties were not equally assessed or taxed. The Supreme Court disagreed with Waite's argument stating that there was no evidence showing intentional discrimination by tax assessors against him specifically or owners of similar properties generally; therefore, it did not violate equal protection clause of the constitution. Furthermore, it held that even if there had been an error in assessing some items for taxation purposes at higher rates than others (which wasn't proven), this would be considered a mistake rather than deliberate discrimination - thus wouldn't constitute violation of constitutional rights. Therefore, Mr.Waite's claim was dismissed and judgement affirmed in favor of City Of Santa Cruz.

The dissenting opinion in the Waite v. Santa Cruz case of 1901 argued that the city's ordinance, which required a permit for street performances and public speeches, was unconstitutional as it violated First Amendment rights to freedom of speech. The justice contended that such an ordinance gave too much discretionary power to local authorities who could arbitrarily deny permits based on personal biases or political motivations. They believed this could lead to censorship and suppression of free expression under the guise of maintaining order or preventing disturbances. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view that streets are not traditional public forums for expressive activities, citing historical examples where streets have been used for parades, protests and other forms of public expressions. Thus, they concluded that any restrictions on these activities should be subject to strict scrutiny - meaning they must serve a compelling state interest and be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest - rather than being broadly applied through blanket ordinances like Santa Cruz’s.