In the 1903 case of Atkin v. Kansas, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Kansas statute that regulated and limited working hours for those employed in dangerous industries such as mining and smelting operations. The plaintiff, Atkin, argued that this law violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection under the law by interfering with his freedom to contract labor freely. However, the court ruled against him stating that states have a legitimate interest in protecting workers' health and safety which can justify restrictions on contractual freedoms. This decision was significant because it affirmed state's power to regulate business practices for public welfare purposes despite potential conflicts with individual liberties.

In the dissenting opinion for ATKIN v. KANSAS, 1903, it was argued that the majority's decision violated principles of federalism and individual rights. The dissenting justices believed that Kansas' law regulating employment contracts interfered with personal liberty and property rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. They contended that while states have a right to regulate certain aspects of employment contracts in order to protect public health or safety, they should not be allowed to interfere with private agreements between employers and employees regarding wages or hours worked unless there is clear evidence of coercion or unequal bargaining power. In this case, they saw no such evidence; therefore, they felt Kansas had overstepped its bounds as a state government by infringing on individuals' freedom to contract under their own terms without just cause.