In the case of Hannis Distilling Company v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 1909, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city council. The dispute arose when a local ordinance was passed by Baltimore prohibiting the storage and sale of inflammable materials within certain limits without obtaining a permit from the mayor and city council. Hannis Distilling Company argued that this law violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights as it deprived them property without due process. However, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., writing for majority opinion stated that there is no constitutional right to carry on business free from reasonable governmental restrictions necessary for public health, safety or welfare; therefore such regulations do not constitute deprivation of property without due process under Fourteenth Amendment if they are reasonable exercises of police power.

In the dissenting opinion for Hannis Distilling Company v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to uphold a city ordinance prohibiting liquor sales within 500 feet of churches or schools was an overreach of government power. He contended that such restrictions were not necessary to protect public health, safety, or morals - which are typically considered legitimate grounds for regulating businesses - but instead infringed upon property rights without due process. Furthermore, he suggested that if every business potentially harmful to society were similarly regulated, it would result in economic chaos and hardship. Thus, while acknowledging the potential negative effects of alcohol consumption on individuals and communities alike, Justice Harlan maintained that this did not justify arbitrary interference with private enterprise.