In the case of Healy, Chief of Police v. Ratta in 1933, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning the Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The dispute arose when Mr. Ratta was arrested by police officers for possession and transportation of alcohol during Prohibition without a warrant or evidence to justify his arrest at that time. The police had acted based on an anonymous tip-off but did not witness any illegal activity themselves before making the arrest. In court, Mr.Ratta argued that this constituted an unlawful search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed with him, ruling that arrests made without warrants or probable cause were unconstitutional unless there was immediate danger or risk involved - which wasn't present in this case as no crime was being committed at sight by law enforcement officials . This decision reinforced citizens' protections from arbitrary actions by law enforcement agencies under Fourth Amendment.

In the dissenting opinion for Healy, Chief of Police v. Ratta (1933), Justice McReynolds argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting non-residents from selling or delivering milk within city limits was incorrect. He contended that this ruling violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S Constitution by allowing states to discriminate against out-of-state businesses and impede interstate commerce. In his view, such protectionist measures were not only unconstitutional but also economically harmful as they prevented competition and hindered economic growth. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's assertion that public health concerns justified these restrictions on trade; instead, he believed there were less restrictive means available to ensure food safety without infringing upon constitutional rights.