In the 1910 case of Griffith v. State of Connecticut, the U.S Supreme Court upheld a conviction against Charles H. Griffith for violating state law by selling "options" on stocks and commodities without actually possessing those items. The court ruled that such transactions were essentially bets or wagers and thus could be prohibited under state law as forms of gambling. In his defense, Griffith argued that these options were contracts protected by the Commerce Clause in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution which gives Congress power to regulate commerce among states. However, this argument was rejected with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., writing for a unanimous court stating that not all contracts relating to subjects within reach of federal power are immune from regulation by states.

In the dissenting opinion for Griffith v. State of Connecticut, it was argued that the state law prohibiting non-pharmacists from selling certain drugs did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The dissenting justices believed that there was a reasonable basis for this classification because pharmacists have specialized knowledge and training in handling drugs which ordinary merchants do not possess. They contended that such regulation is within the police power of states to protect public health and safety, even if it may interfere with individual liberty or property rights under normal circumstances. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority’s view about interstate commerce clause violation as well; according to them, since these were local sales within Connecticut only - federal jurisdiction didn’t apply here.