In the case of Bernards et al. v. Johnson et al., 1941, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state law that allowed for the sterilization of individuals deemed mentally unfit violated their constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause. The plaintiffs in this case were siblings who had been declared mentally incompetent by a court and ordered to undergo sterilization procedures under an Idaho statute allowing such actions for those considered "feeble-minded." They challenged this order on grounds that it infringed upon their fundamental right to procreate and constituted cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court ruled against them, upholding Idaho's eugenic sterilization law as constitutionally valid. It found no violation of equal protection since all persons similarly situated (i.e., judged feeble-minded) were treated alike under the law; nor did it find any infringement upon due process because proper notice and hearing had been provided before ordering sterilizations. Furthermore, they rejected arguments about cruel/unusual punishment as irrelevant since these proceedings weren't punitive but protective measures aimed at public health/welfare.

In the dissenting opinion for Bernards et al. v. Johnson et al., Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Minnesota law allowing creditors to seize and sell debtor property without prior notice or hearing was in violation of due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. He contended that such an abrupt deprivation of property, without any opportunity for the debtor to challenge it beforehand, constituted a clear infringement on constitutional protections against arbitrary state action. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on historical precedent as justification for this ruling, noting that past practices should not be used as a guide when they conflict with fundamental principles of fairness and justice enshrined in our Constitution.