In the case of Dominion Hotel, Inc. v. State of Arizona in 1918, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving liquor licensing laws in Arizona. The Dominion Hotel had been denied a license to sell alcohol by local authorities due to its proximity to a school and church, which was against state law at that time. The hotel challenged this decision arguing that it violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights under the U.S Constitution - specifically equal protection under the law and due process clauses. The court upheld Arizona's right as a state to regulate liquor sales within its jurisdiction for public welfare reasons including moral considerations or potential disturbances near schools or churches; thus rejecting Dominion Hotel’s argument about violation of constitutional rights. This ruling affirmed states' powers over local matters such as regulating commerce within their borders while also upholding principles related to public health and safety.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Dominion Hotel, Inc. v. State of Arizona argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting alcohol sales on election days was an overreach of government power and infringed upon individual liberties. The dissenters contended that there was no clear connection between preventing public drunkenness and maintaining order at polling places, which were the stated goals of this legislation. They further pointed out that such laws could potentially be used as tools for political manipulation by those in power, who might selectively enforce them to suppress voter turnout among certain populations or influence election outcomes indirectly through control over access to alcohol sales. Ultimately, they believed it was not within the purview of government authority to regulate personal behavior in such a manner unless it directly threatened public safety or violated others' rights.