In Foster v. Kansas, the United States Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of a Kansas law that prohibited the sale of intoxicating liquors. The plaintiff, Foster, was a liquor dealer who was convicted of violating the law. He argued that the law violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees the right to due process of law. The Supreme Court held that the law was constitutional. The Court reasoned that the law 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 law was not an unreasonable or arbitrary exercise of the state's power, and that it was not in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also held that the law did not violate the right to due process of law. The Court reasoned that the law was not so vague or indefinite that it would be impossible to determine what conduct was prohibited. The Court also noted that the law was not so broad that it would be impossible to comply with it. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the Kansas law prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors was constitutional and did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Foster v. Kansas, arguing that the state of Kansas had not violated any constitutional rights by denying a jury trial to John Foster. He argued that states have always been able to set their own rules for criminal proceedings and noted that many other states did not provide jury trials in certain cases at this time. Furthermore, he asserted that there was no evidence presented during the case which showed any prejudice or unfairness on behalf of Kansas towards Foster due to his lack of a jury trial. Justice Field concluded by stating that it would be wrong for the Supreme Court to interfere with how each state chooses to conduct its criminal proceedings as long as they do not violate an individual's constitutional rights.