The Werlein v. New Orleans case in 1899 revolved around a dispute over property tax assessment. The plaintiff, Philip Werlein, argued that the city of New Orleans had unfairly assessed his properties at an inflated value compared to other similar properties in the area, thereby violating his constitutional rights to equal protection and due process under the law. He sought relief from paying taxes on this excessive valuation. However, the U.S Supreme Court ruled against him stating that it did not have jurisdiction over such matters as they were local issues rather than federal ones. The court held that it could not interfere with state taxation processes unless there was clear violation or transgression of rights secured by Federal Constitution which wasn't evident in this case.

The dissenting opinion in the Werlein v. New Orleans case argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and interpretations of tax laws. The dissenting justices believed that the city of New Orleans had not exceeded its authority by taxing a federal bond, as it was within their jurisdiction to do so under state law. They contended that there were no constitutional provisions or precedents barring local governments from imposing taxes on such bonds. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that this taxation amounted to an interference with federal operations, arguing instead that it was simply a matter of exercising legitimate municipal powers for revenue generation purposes.