In the 1910 case of Griffith, Alias Griffin v. State of Connecticut, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a state law that prohibited private possession and use of slot machines. The appellant argued that his conviction for owning such a machine violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause because he was not using it for gambling purposes but rather as an amusement device in his home. However, the court rejected this argument stating that states have broad powers to regulate activities within their borders to protect public morals and welfare - including banning items they believe contribute to vice or crime even if used innocently by some individuals. Therefore, despite any personal non-gambling use by Griffith, Connecticut had legitimate grounds to ban all private ownership of slot machines.

In the dissenting opinion for Griffith v. State of Connecticut, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting interracial marriage was fundamentally flawed. He contended that such laws were in direct violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which guarantees all citizens equal protection under the law regardless of race or color. Justice Harlan asserted that by upholding this discriminatory law, the Court was effectively endorsing racial prejudice and inequality. Furthermore, he maintained that it is not within a state’s power to dictate who its citizens can marry based on their race as it infringes upon personal liberty and property rights protected by due process clause of Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, he disagreed with his colleagues' interpretation and application of constitutional principles in this case.