In the case of Connally, Commissioner, et al. v. General Construction Company in 1925, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a law was unconstitutional if it was too vague to be understood by those who were expected to abide by it. The case involved an Oklahoma statute which required contractors on public works projects to pay their workers "current rate of per diem wages in the locality where the work is performed." The court found this language unconstitutionally vague because there were no standards provided for determining what constituted 'current rates' or 'locality.' This lack of clarity could lead to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement as different people might interpret these terms differently. Therefore, such a law violated due process under the Fourteenth Amendment since individuals couldn't reasonably understand what behavior would constitute compliance with or violation of said law.

In the dissenting opinion for Connally v. General Construction Company, Justice McReynolds argued that the Oklahoma statute in question was not unconstitutionally vague. He contended that it provided sufficient guidance to employers on what constituted a fair and reasonable wage for workers involved in public works projects. The justice believed that any confusion could be resolved by referring to common practices within relevant trades or professions at the time of enactment. Furthermore, he suggested that if there were doubts about specific wages being fair and reasonable, these should be decided through litigation rather than declaring the entire law unconstitutional. In his view, this approach would provide greater protection for workers' rights while still allowing flexibility for changing economic conditions.