In the case of Hoffman, Judge v. Missouri ex rel. Foraker in 1926, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving judicial salaries and state law. The appellant was a judge whose salary had been reduced by an amendment to the state constitution during his term of office, which he argued violated Article III Section 1 of the U.S Constitution that states judges' compensation shall not be diminished during their service. However, this provision only applies to federal judges and not those at state level as per previous rulings (Barker v Kansas). Therefore, it did not protect him from having his pay cut by changes in Missouri's laws or constitution. The court held that while there is no doubt about its jurisdiction over controversies between a State and citizens of another State under Article III section 2 clause 1; it does have discretion whether or not to take such cases under its original jurisdiction according to Judiciary Act sec13 (1789) & Amendment XI(1795). In this particular instance though - where there were adequate remedies available within Missouri’s own courts system for resolving any constitutional issues raised – they declined exercising said discretionary power thus affirming lower court's decision without passing judgement on merits.

In the dissenting opinion for Hoffman, Judge v. Missouri ex rel. Foraker (1926), Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a state law that required judges to retire at age 70. He argued that such a requirement was an unconstitutional violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause because it discriminated against individuals based solely on their age. Holmes believed this violated principles of fairness and equality under the law, as he saw no rational basis for assuming that all judges become unfit to serve simply because they reach a certain age. Furthermore, he contended that if there were concerns about individual judges' fitness or competency due to advanced age or other reasons, those should be addressed through case-by-case evaluations rather than blanket prohibitions based on arbitrary criteria like chronological age.