In the case of Beadles v. Smyser, Mayor of the City of Perry, Oklahoma in 1907, plaintiff Beadles sought to prevent defendant Smyser from enforcing a city ordinance that prohibited him from operating his pool hall on Sundays. The Supreme Court held that the ordinance was within constitutional bounds and did not infringe upon any rights protected by either state or federal constitutions. The court reasoned that while individuals have certain inherent rights such as life, liberty and property which are constitutionally protected against arbitrary interference by law; these rights are subject to reasonable regulation for public good under police power vested in states. Therefore, it upheld the validity of Sunday closing laws enacted for promoting public welfare through preservation of peace and orderliness during one day each week.

In the dissenting opinion for Beadles v. Smyser, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold an ordinance prohibiting pool halls from operating on Sundays infringed upon individual liberties and personal freedoms. The dissenting justices contended that such a law was not within the purview of local government authority, as it interfered with private business operations without serving any clear public interest or welfare purpose. They further asserted that this type of regulation constituted an overreach by municipal authorities into areas best left to individual discretion and judgment. In essence, they believed in upholding a more laissez-faire approach towards governance where businesses are free to operate as they see fit unless their activities pose significant harm or danger to society at large.