In the case of Bunting v. State of Oregon in 1916, the U.S Supreme Court upheld an Oregon law that limited work hours for both men and women to ten per day. The plaintiff, a mill owner named George Bunting, argued that this law violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights by interfering with his freedom to contract labor as he saw fit. However, the court ruled against him on grounds of public health and safety concerns associated with long working hours. This ruling was significant because it expanded upon previous rulings which had only applied such limitations to women's working hours due to their perceived physical weakness compared to men. By extending these protections also towards male workers, this decision marked a shift towards broader labor rights and regulations.

In the dissenting opinion for Bunting v. State of Oregon, Justice McKenna expressed his disagreement with the majority's decision to uphold an Oregon law that limited work in mills and factories to ten hours a day. He argued that this was not a health measure but rather one aimed at economic regulation, which he believed fell outside of state police power. Furthermore, he contended that there was no clear connection between long working hours and harm to workers' health or safety; thus it could not be justified as a public welfare measure either. The justice also pointed out inconsistencies in how such laws were applied across different industries and states, suggesting arbitrariness in their enforcement. In conclusion, Justice McKenna asserted that these types of labor regulations infringed upon individual liberty by limiting contractual freedom without sufficient justification.