In the case of Barbour v. State of Georgia (1918), the U.S Supreme Court upheld a decision by lower courts in favor of the state, which had convicted Mr. Barbour for violating local liquor laws. The defendant argued that his conviction was unconstitutional because it violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection under law, as he claimed that there were others who committed similar offenses but were not prosecuted or punished. However, the court ruled against him stating that selective enforcement does not necessarily violate constitutional rights unless it is based on an unjustifiable standard such as race or religion. In this case, no evidence suggested any discriminatory intent in enforcing Georgia's liquor laws against Mr.Barbour; hence his claim was dismissed.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Barbour v. State of Georgia argued that the majority's decision to uphold Mr. Barbour's conviction was a violation of his constitutional rights, specifically those protected under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The dissent contended that evidence used against Mr. Barbour had been obtained through an unlawful search and seizure, thereby making it inadmissible in court proceedings according to established legal precedent set by previous Supreme Court rulings such as Weeks v. United States (1914). Furthermore, they believed this illegal action constituted a denial of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment because it infringed upon his right to privacy and protection from unreasonable searches without probable cause or a warrant issued on specific grounds. They also expressed concern over potential implications for future cases if such practices were allowed to continue unchallenged.