In Carey et al. v. Brown, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state law that prohibited the use of public property for religious purposes was constitutional. The case arose when the state of Oregon passed a law that prohibited the use of public school buildings for religious worship or instruction. The plaintiffs, a group of religious organizations, argued that the law violated their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. 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 plaintiffs' First Amendment rights. The Court noted that the law did not prohibit religious worship or instruction, but merely prohibited the use of public property for those activities. The Court also noted that the law was not intended to interfere with the free exercise of religion, but was instead intended to prevent the state from becoming entangled in religious matters. The Court's decision in Carey et al. v. Brown established that states may constitutionally prohibit the use of public property for religious purposes. The decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving the use of public property for religious activities.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Carey et al. v. Brown, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and common sense. He argued that while it is true that a state may regulate its own internal affairs, such regulation must be done within constitutional limits; here, he believed California had gone too far by attempting to limit an individual's right of free labor without any reasonable justification or necessity for doing so. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that there was no evidence presented at trial which showed how this law would benefit either public health or safety - two legitimate reasons for enacting legislation - and thus concluded it should not have been upheld as valid under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. In conclusion, Justice Field stated his belief that if states are allowed to pass laws like this one with impunity then they will soon become oppressive dictatorships rather than democratic republics governed by just laws protecting all citizens' rights equally regardless of race or creed.