In the case of Burke, DBA Ranch Acres Liquors, et al. v. Ford et al., DBA All Brands Sales Co., et al., 1967, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over Oklahoma's liquor laws. The appellants were retail package store operators who challenged an Oklahoma statute that prohibited them from selling beer while allowing other retailers to do so. They argued that this law violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights by creating arbitrary and discriminatory classifications among different types of businesses selling alcoholic beverages in the state. The court ruled against the appellants, upholding the constitutionality of Oklahoma's alcohol regulations under rational basis review - a legal standard used to determine whether a government action is reasonably related to achieving a legitimate public interest. The court found that there was no violation of equal protection because states have broad power under the Twenty-first Amendment (which ended Prohibition) to regulate alcohol sales within their borders as they see fit.

In the dissenting opinion for Burke, DBA Ranch Acres Liquors, et al. v. Ford et al., DBA All Brands Sales Co., et al., Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Oklahoma law and its application to this case. He argued that the court should not have decided on a matter of state law without first seeking clarification from Oklahoma courts or legislature about their intent behind such laws. In his view, it was inappropriate for federal courts to interpret state laws in ways that could potentially conflict with how those states would interpret them themselves. Furthermore, he believed that even if there were ambiguities in these laws as they pertained to liquor distribution practices under scrutiny here, any doubts should be resolved in favor of upholding existing commercial arrangements rather than disrupting them based on speculative interpretations.