In Benbow v. Iowa City, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a city ordinance that prohibited the sale of liquor within the city limits was constitutional. The plaintiff, Benjamin Benbow, argued that the ordinance violated his right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the ordinance was constitutional. The Court reasoned that the ordinance was a valid exercise of the city's police power, which is the power of a state or local government to regulate activities within its jurisdiction for the public health, safety, and welfare. The Court also noted that the ordinance was not an unreasonable or arbitrary exercise of the city's police power, as it was designed to protect the public from the dangers of alcohol consumption. The Court further held that the ordinance did not violate Benbow's right to due process of law, as the ordinance was not an unreasonable or arbitrary exercise of the city's police power. The Court noted that the ordinance was a reasonable means of protecting the public from the dangers of alcohol consumption. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the ordinance was constitutional and did not violate Benbow's right to due process of law. The Court reasoned that the ordinance was a valid exercise of the city's police power and was not an unreasonable or arbitrary exercise of the city's police power.

In Benbow v. Iowa City, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a city ordinance that prohibited the sale of alcohol within two miles of an educational institution violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The majority opinion held that it did not violate equal protection because there were rational reasons for enacting such an ordinance and no evidence of discrimination against any particular group or class. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on the grounds that while reasonable restrictions could be placed on liquor sales near schools, this restriction went too far in its scope and effect by prohibiting all sales within two miles regardless of proximity to school property or students' residences. He argued that such a broad prohibition was unreasonable and unnecessary given other available means for protecting children from exposure to alcohol without infringing upon citizens' rights under equal protection laws.