Bradley v. The People was a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1866. The case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of a state law that prohibited the sale of alcohol. The plaintiff, Bradley, was a liquor dealer who was charged with violating the law. He argued that the law was unconstitutional because it violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the law was constitutional. The Court reasoned that the law was a valid exercise of the state's police power and that it did not violate the Due Process Clause. The Court noted that the law was a reasonable regulation of a legitimate state interest and that it did not deprive Bradley of any fundamental rights. The Court also noted that the law was not overly burdensome and that it did not interfere with interstate commerce. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the law was constitutional and that Bradley had violated it. The Court's decision established that states have the power to regulate the sale of alcohol and that such regulations do not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In Bradley v. The People, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state law that allowed for criminal defendants to be tried in absentia violated the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Justice Field wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that allowing trials without defendants present did not violate any constitutional rights and should be upheld as valid under state law. He argued that while it is true that an accused has certain rights during trial, such as being able to confront witnesses or have counsel present, these are privileges rather than absolute requirements for a fair trial. Furthermore, he noted that if states were prohibited from trying individuals who had fled justice then criminals would have little incentive to appear at their own trials and could instead simply flee when charged with crimes. As such, Justice Field concluded by stating his belief that allowing trials in absentia was necessary for public safety and should remain permissible under state laws even though it may infringe on some of an individual's rights during trial proceedings.