Brown v. Colorado is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1886. The case involved a dispute between the state of Colorado and a man named John Brown. Brown had been convicted of a crime in Colorado and was sentenced to a year in prison. He appealed his conviction, arguing that the state had violated his constitutional rights by not providing him with a jury trial. The Supreme Court agreed with Brown and ruled in his favor. The Court held that the state of Colorado had violated Brown's right to a jury trial as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. The Court also held that the state had violated Brown's right to due process of law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court ruled that the state of Colorado must provide Brown with a jury trial in order to ensure that his constitutional rights were protected. The decision in Brown v. Colorado was an important one in the development of constitutional law in the United States. It established the principle that states must provide individuals with a jury trial in order to ensure that their constitutional rights are protected. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then and has been used to protect the rights of individuals in a variety of contexts.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Brown v. Colorado, arguing that the state of Colorado had violated due process by failing to provide a fair trial for petitioner John H. Brown. He argued that while it was true that states have broad powers to regulate their own citizens, they must do so within constitutional limits and with respect for individual rights. In this case, he contended that the state's actions were unconstitutional because it denied Brown his right to a jury trial without any reasonable justification or explanation as to why such an action was necessary or appropriate under the circumstances. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if there had been some valid reason for denying him a jury trial, then at least he should have been given notice of what those reasons were before being deprived of his right; however no such notice was provided here either. Ultimately Justice Field concluded by stating "the deprivation is not only contrary to law but unjust."