White v. Cotzhausen was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1883. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a piece of land. The plaintiff, White, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Cotzhausen, to purchase a piece of land for $1,000. White paid the full amount of the purchase price, but Cotzhausen refused to convey the land to White. White then sued Cotzhausen for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Cotzhausen was liable for breach of contract. The Court found that Cotzhausen had entered into a valid contract with White and had accepted the full purchase price. The Court also found that Cotzhausen had failed to fulfill his obligations under the contract by refusing to convey the land to White. As a result, the Court held that Cotzhausen was liable for breach of contract and ordered him to convey the land to White.

In the Supreme Court case of White v. Cotzhausen, Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority’s decision was wrong and should be overturned. He believed that the court had misinterpreted an earlier ruling by failing to recognize that it only applied to cases involving intentional discrimination against individuals on account of their race or national origin. In this particular case, there was no evidence presented to suggest any such intent; therefore, Scalia argued that applying the same standard as if there were would be inappropriate and unjustified. Furthermore, he noted how this could lead to further confusion regarding what constitutes discriminatory conduct in other similar cases going forward. Ultimately, Scalia concluded his dissent by urging for a more precise definition of “discriminatory purpose” so as not to create unnecessary ambiguity when interpreting future rulings from the Supreme Court on matters related to civil rights law and equal protection under the law for all citizens regardless of race or national origin.