In Gundling v. Chicago (1899), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a municipal ordinance in Chicago that required a license to sell cigarettes, ruling it did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The plaintiff, George Gundling, was convicted for selling cigarettes without a license and challenged the constitutionality of this requirement on grounds that it discriminated against cigarette sellers compared to other tobacco product vendors who were not subject to similar licensing requirements. However, the court ruled that municipalities have broad powers under police regulations to protect public health and morals; therefore they can regulate or even prohibit sale of products deemed harmful like cigarettes. The court also noted there is no inherent right in citizens to sell tobacco; hence such regulation does not deprive them of any fundamental rights protected by Constitution.

In the dissenting opinion for Gundling v. Chicago, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a city ordinance requiring licenses for cigarette manufacturers and dealers infringed upon individual liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissenting justices contended that such an ordinance constituted an unreasonable exercise of police power by local government, as it did not serve any clear public health or safety purpose. They believed this law unfairly targeted certain businesses without just cause, thereby violating their constitutional rights to equal protection under the law and due process. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that cigarettes were inherently harmful products which required special regulation; instead arguing there was insufficient scientific evidence to support such claims at that time.