In Brown v. McConnell, the United States Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of a state law that prohibited the sale of intoxicating liquors. The plaintiff, Brown, was a liquor dealer who was charged with violating the law. He argued that the law was unconstitutional because it violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. 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 Equal Protection Clause. The Court noted that the law was not intended to discriminate against any particular class of persons, but rather to promote the public health, safety, and welfare. The Court also held that the law did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that the law was a reasonable exercise of the state's police power and that it did not deprive Brown of any fundamental right. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state law prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors 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 Equal Protection Clause or the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Brown v. McConnell, arguing that Congress had no power to pass a law granting exclusive rights to an individual or corporation for any invention or discovery. He argued that such laws were unconstitutional because they violated the right of individuals and corporations to pursue their own inventions without interference from government regulation. Furthermore, he argued that if Congress was allowed to grant exclusive rights over inventions and discoveries, then it could also grant similar privileges over other areas of business activity which would be detrimental to free enterprise and competition in the marketplace. Justice Field concluded by stating that while he did not deny the importance of protecting inventors' rights through patent laws, these should only be granted when there is clear evidence showing why such protection is necessary; otherwise it would amount to giving special privileges which are contrary both with justice and sound policy.