In the case of Campbell v. Wade, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state could constitutionally require a person to obtain a license before engaging in the practice of medicine. The case arose when Dr. Campbell, a licensed physician in the state of Georgia, was charged with practicing medicine without a license. Dr. Campbell argued that the state's licensing requirement violated his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the state's licensing requirement did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that the state had a legitimate interest in protecting the public from unqualified practitioners and that the licensing requirement was a reasonable means of achieving that goal. The Court also noted that the licensing requirement did not impose an undue burden on Dr. Campbell's right to practice medicine. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state of Georgia could constitutionally require a person to obtain a license before engaging in the practice of medicine. The Court found that the licensing requirement was a reasonable means of protecting the public from unqualified practitioners and did not impose an undue burden on the right to practice medicine.

In the dissenting opinion of Campbell v. Wade, Justice White argued that the majority's decision to reverse and remand was wrongfully decided. He believed that the lower court had properly applied existing precedent in its ruling and should not have been overturned by the Supreme Court. In his dissent, he noted that there were no new facts or legal arguments presented to justify a reversal of this case, which meant it was an improper use of judicial power for them to do so. Furthermore, Justice White argued that even if there were new facts or legal arguments presented they would still be insufficient grounds for overturning established precedent without further consideration from other courts first. Ultimately he concluded by stating his belief that reversing and remanding this case set a dangerous precedent as it allowed any party dissatisfied with their outcome in one court could simply appeal until they found a favorable result elsewhere regardless of whether or not their argument held up under scrutiny from higher courts like the Supreme Court itself.