In the 1941 case of Cochran v. Kansas, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cochran, reversing a decision made by the Kansas Supreme Court. The case revolved around an issue where Mr. Cochran was convicted for selling milk below cost price which violated a state law aimed at preventing unfair competition and preserving small businesses from larger competitors who could afford to sell goods under cost price. However, he argued that this law infringed upon his Fourteenth Amendment rights - specifically his right to due process and equal protection under the law as it did not provide clear standards on how to determine "cost". The U.S Supreme Court agreed with him stating that while states have power to regulate business practices within their jurisdiction, such laws must be reasonable and clearly defined so as not infringe upon constitutional rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Cochran v. Kansas, Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring fingerprinting and photographing of individuals arrested on felony charges was an infringement on personal liberties. He contended that such practices were invasive and violated the Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential misuse or abuse of these records by authorities in future unrelated investigations without proper safeguards in place. He also pointed out that this practice could lead to public humiliation and damage to reputation even if one is ultimately found innocent of charges brought against them. Thus, he believed it was essential to balance crime prevention efforts with respect for individual privacy rights.