In the case of Glenn et al. v. Johnson et al., the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state law that prohibited the sale of alcohol within four miles of a school was constitutional. The plaintiffs argued that the law violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, as it was applied unequally to different areas of the state. The Supreme Court held that the law was constitutional, as it was a reasonable exercise of the state's police power. The Court noted that the law was not intended to discriminate against any particular group, but rather to protect the health and welfare of the state's citizens. The Court also noted that the law was applied equally to all areas of the state, and that it was not overly burdensome. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the law was constitutional, as it was a reasonable exercise of the state's police power. The Court noted that the law was applied equally to all areas of the state, and that it was not overly burdensome.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Glenn et al. v. Johnson et al., arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and equity. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written, regardless of any subsequent changes in circumstances or laws which might have made it more difficult for one party to fulfill their obligations under the agreement. In this case, he noted that there had been no change in either state or federal law since the contract was signed which would render its performance impossible; thus, he believed it should still be enforceable against both parties according to its original terms and conditions. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that even if such a change did occur after signing an agreement, courts should not use their equitable powers to modify contracts unless they are absolutely necessary due to some extraordinary circumstance beyond either party's control - something which did not exist here given all other relevant facts were known at time of signing. As such, Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating his belief that enforcing contracts as originally agreed upon is essential for maintaining public confidence in our legal system and upholding justice for all involved parties