In the Crowley v. Christensen case of 1890, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a San Francisco ordinance prohibiting public drunkenness did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The plaintiff, Mr. Christensen, was arrested for being drunk in public and argued that his arrest violated his constitutional rights because it selectively targeted individuals who were intoxicated in public places while ignoring those who drank excessively at home or private clubs. However, Justice Samuel Blatchford delivered an unanimous opinion stating that laws are allowed to make distinctions between different classes of people as long as they have a rational basis related to legitimate government interests - here maintaining order and safety on city streets by curbing public intoxication.

In the dissenting opinion for Crowley v. Christensen, Justice Bradley argued that the majority's decision to uphold a San Francisco ordinance banning public drunkenness was an overreach of government power and violated individual liberties. He contended that while excessive drinking could lead to harmful consequences, moderate consumption should not be criminalized as it did not inherently pose a threat to public safety or morality. Furthermore, he believed that such regulations were inconsistent with American values of personal freedom and autonomy. The justice also expressed concern about the potential for arbitrary enforcement and abuse of power by authorities under this law due to its broad scope and vague language defining what constituted 'public drunkenness.' Overall, Justice Bradley viewed this case as an example of unwarranted governmental intrusion into private lives which undermined citizens' constitutional rights.