In Farrington v. Tennessee, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state statute that prohibited the sale of intoxicating liquors within four miles of a schoolhouse was constitutional. The plaintiff, Farrington, was a liquor dealer who had been convicted of violating the statute. He argued that the statute violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees the right to due process of law. The Supreme Court held that the statute was constitutional. The Court reasoned that the statute was a valid exercise of the state's police power, which allows states to pass laws to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. The Court also noted that the statute was not overly broad or vague, and that it did not violate any other constitutional rights. The Court concluded that the statute was a valid exercise of the state's police power and that it did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court therefore affirmed the conviction of Farrington.

In Farrington v. Tennessee, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state statute that prohibited any person from carrying a pistol without permission violated the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. The majority opinion held that it did not violate the Second Amendment and upheld the conviction of Farrington for violating this law. Justice Field dissented, arguing that while states have some authority to regulate firearms, they cannot completely prohibit them as this would be in direct violation of an individual's right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. He argued further that even if there were legitimate public safety concerns about allowing individuals unrestricted access to firearms, such restrictions should come from Congress rather than through state statutes which could potentially conflict with federal laws or constitutional rights.