In the 1964 case of Case v. Nebraska, the United States Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a state law that allowed for indefinite civil commitment of sexually violent predators violated constitutional rights. The petitioner, Mr. Case, had been committed under this law after serving prison time for sexual offenses and argued that his continued detention was unconstitutional because it amounted to additional punishment without due process or equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court disagreed with Mr. Case's arguments and upheld Nebraska’s Sex Offender Commitment Act as constitutional. The court found that such laws were not punitive but rather aimed at protecting society from dangerous individuals while also providing treatment to those individuals in an effort to rehabilitate them. This decision affirmed states' authority to enact legislation designed for public safety even if it results in long-term confinement of certain offenders beyond their original sentence duration.

In the dissenting opinion for Case v. Nebraska, 1964, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting non-physicians from fitting and selling hearing aids violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissenting justices believed that this law unfairly restricted trade and competition without sufficient justification or public benefit. They contended that there was no compelling evidence showing non-physician sellers of hearing aids posed any significant risk to consumers' health or safety. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies in how similar professions were regulated; optometrists could prescribe glasses but not contact lenses while pharmacists could sell drugs over-the-counter but not prescription medications. These disparities suggested arbitrary enforcement rather than rational policy-making based on empirical data or professional consensus about best practices in healthcare delivery systems.