In the case of In re Duncan, 1890, the petitioner was a lawyer who had been disbarred by the Supreme Court of Kansas for unprofessional conduct. The misconduct in question involved his handling of funds entrusted to him by clients and other parties. He appealed this decision to the United States Supreme Court on grounds that he was denied due process as guaranteed under Fourteenth Amendment rights because he wasn't given an opportunity for defense before being disbarred. However, upon review, it was found that Duncan did indeed have ample opportunity to present his defense during proceedings at state level but chose not to do so. Therefore, U.S Supreme court upheld Kansas' decision stating there were no violations against his constitutional rights and affirmed its jurisdiction over matters concerning admission or disbarment from practicing law within its boundaries.

The dissenting opinion in the case of In re Duncan, 1890, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a law requiring compulsory education was an overreach of government power. The dissenters believed that parents should have the ultimate authority in deciding how their children are educated and raised. They contended that while states do have a legitimate interest in ensuring children receive an adequate education, this does not justify infringing on parental rights or religious freedoms. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential abuses of such laws by state officials who might use them as tools for social engineering or indoctrination rather than genuine educational improvement. Ultimately, they asserted that it is essential to balance public interests with individual liberties and warned against setting dangerous precedents which could erode these fundamental principles.