In Beer Company v. Massachusetts, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a Massachusetts law prohibiting the sale of beer in containers larger than one quart was constitutional. The Beer Company argued that the law violated the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. The Court held that the law was constitutional. The Court reasoned that the law was a valid exercise of the state's police power, which allows states to pass laws to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. The Court also noted that the law did not discriminate against out-of-state beer companies, as it applied equally to all beer companies, regardless of where they were located. The Court concluded that the law was a valid exercise of the state's police power and did not violate the Commerce Clause. As a result, the law was upheld and the Beer Company's challenge was rejected.

In Beer Company v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state law prohibiting the sale of malt and brewed beverages on Sunday violated the Constitution. The majority opinion held that it did not violate any constitutional rights because there were no fundamental rights at stake in this case. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that states do not have an unlimited right to pass laws which interfere with personal liberty or private property without due process of law. He argued that while some restrictions may be necessary for public safety and order, they must still be reasonable and consistent with natural justice principles such as equal protection under the law. Furthermore, he argued that if a state is going to restrict certain activities like selling beer on Sundays then it should provide compensation for those affected by its actions since taking away someone's livelihood without just cause would constitute a deprivation of their property without due process of law in violation of both federal and state constitutions.