In the 1909 case of Brantley v. State of Georgia, the United States Supreme Court examined whether a state law that allowed for punishment without trial was constitutional. The appellant, Brantley, had been convicted and sentenced to death in Georgia under a statute permitting capital punishment for certain crimes committed by prisoners serving life sentences. He argued that this violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights as it denied him due process of law since he did not receive a separate trial for the second offense. However, the Supreme Court upheld his conviction and sentence on appeal. The court ruled that while every accused person has an absolute right to be tried by jury upon charges made against them before they can be legally deprived of their life or liberty; however, when someone is already serving a life sentence in prison - they are technically already deprived of their liberty so any additional punishments do not infringe on these rights further. This ruling established precedent regarding how subsequent offenses committed by those already incarcerated should be handled within our legal system.

In the dissenting opinion for Brantley v. State of Georgia, the justice disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a state law that made it illegal for railroad employees to encourage or assist others in seeking employment elsewhere. The dissent argued that this law violated an individual’s right to free speech and was therefore unconstitutional. They believed that every citizen has a fundamental right to seek better employment opportunities and help others do so as well, without fear of legal repercussions. Furthermore, they contended that such laws could potentially lead employers to exploit their workers by preventing them from leaving unsatisfactory jobs due to fear of prosecution under these restrictive statutes.