In the case of Egan v. Clasbey, 1890, the United States Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state law in Indiana that allowed for the sale of liquor on Sundays was unconstitutional. The plaintiff, Egan, argued that this law violated his religious beliefs as he observed Sunday as a day of rest and worship. He claimed that allowing such sales infringed upon his right to freedom of religion under the First Amendment. However, the court ruled against him stating that while individuals have a constitutional right to practice their religion freely without government interference; this does not extend to controlling how others behave or conduct business on days they consider sacred. Therefore it upheld Indiana's Sunday liquor laws ruling them constitutional because they did not force anyone to act contrary to their religious beliefs but merely permitted those who wished to do so.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Egan v. Clasbey argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found in favor of Egan on grounds that he had not been properly notified about an impending sale of his property, was incorrect. The dissenters believed that there was sufficient evidence to suggest Egan had indeed received adequate notice and therefore should have taken action sooner if he wished to prevent the sale. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of certain legal statutes related to property rights and sales procedures, arguing for a stricter reading of these laws. Furthermore, they expressed concern over potential negative implications this ruling could have on future cases involving similar circumstances.