In Ferguson v. Arthur, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state law that prohibited the sale of intoxicating liquors was constitutional. The plaintiff, Ferguson, was a liquor dealer who had been convicted of violating the law. He argued that the law violated his right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the law was constitutional. The Court reasoned that the state had a legitimate interest in protecting the public health and safety, and that the law was a reasonable means of achieving that goal. The Court also noted that the law did not prohibit the manufacture or possession of intoxicating liquors, and that it did not interfere with the right of individuals to purchase liquor from other states. The Court concluded that the law 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 Ferguson.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Ferguson v. Arthur, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to an unjust result. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms, regardless of whether it is fair or not. In this case, he noted that there had been no fraud or mistake on either side when they entered into their agreement; therefore, it should have been upheld as written. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that if one party were allowed to unilaterally change the terms of a contract after entering into it without any legal justification for doing so then contracts could become meaningless and unenforceable in court. As such, he concluded by stating his belief that the Court should have found in favor of Ferguson and ordered Arthur to pay him what was owed under their original agreement.