In the case of Williams v. City of Talladega in 1912, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a city ordinance requiring a license tax for conducting certain businesses was not unconstitutional. The plaintiff, Williams, argued that his business - selling photographs and frames - should be exempt from this tax as it violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. He claimed that other similar businesses were not taxed at all or were taxed less than him. However, the court found no evidence to support these claims and held that there was no discrimination against him by imposing such taxes on his business activities within city limits. Therefore, they upheld the validity of local laws allowing municipalities to impose license taxes on various trades and professions for revenue purposes.

In the dissenting opinion for Williams v. City of Talladega, the justice argued that there was a lack of evidence to support the claim that Williams had been denied his constitutional rights. The justice believed that it was not proven beyond reasonable doubt whether or not Williams' confession was obtained voluntarily or through coercion as alleged by him. He also pointed out inconsistencies in William's testimony and highlighted how he changed his story multiple times during trial proceedings, which raised questions about its credibility. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s decision to overturn Alabama Supreme Court's ruling based on their interpretation of state law regarding admissibility of confessions in court trials; arguing instead that this should be left up to states themselves rather than federal courts intervening unnecessarily into state matters.