Prominent lawyer Newton D. Baker argued the case for Ambler Realty and James Metzenbaum represented Euclid.

The Court held that the zoning ordinance was not an unreasonable extension of the village's police power and did not have the character of arbitrary fiat, and thus it was not unconstitutional.

Further, the Court found that Ambler Realty had offered no evidence that the ordinance had any effect on the value of the property in question, but based their assertions of depreciation on speculation only.

The Court noted that the challenger in a due process case would have to show that the law in question is discriminatory and has no rational basis.

In short the Court ruled that zoning ordinances, regulations and laws must find their justification in some aspect of police power and asserted for the public welfare.

The Supreme Court, in holding that there was valid government interest in maintaining the character of a neighborhood and in regulating where certain land uses should occur, allowed for the subsequent explosion in zoning ordinances across the country.

[6] Both progressive and conservative legal scholars have begun calling for Euclid v. Ambler to be overturned or severely limited under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.