In the case of Blow et al. v. North Carolina in 1964, the U.S Supreme Court addressed an appeal from a group of African American citizens who were convicted for trespassing after they refused to leave a segregated restaurant when asked by management. The appellants argued that their convictions violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights, which guarantees equal protection under law and due process. However, the court upheld the conviction with a 5-4 decision stating that private property owners have the right to choose whom they serve and can ask anyone to leave if they wish so; this is not considered discrimination under state action doctrine as it was not enforced by any state laws or officials but rather was an individual's choice on his own property.

In the dissenting opinion for Blow et al. v. North Carolina, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to adequately consider the constitutional rights of those accused of crimes. The dissenting justices believed that by upholding a state law which allowed for non-unanimous jury verdicts in criminal cases, the court was undermining an essential element of due process - namely, that guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt to each and every juror before a conviction can be secured. They also expressed concern about potential racial bias influencing such split decisions given historical context and demographic makeup of juries at this time period in North Carolina. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority’s interpretation on how federal constitution should apply to states regarding unanimity requirement in jury trials; arguing instead for stricter scrutiny and more robust protection against potential abuses within state legal systems.