In the 1922 case of Jackman v. Rosenbaum Company, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a state law that required all commodities to be sold in standard containers violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The appellant, Jackman, argued that this law infringed upon his right to contract freely and conduct business as he saw fit. However, Rosenbaum Company countered by stating that such laws were necessary for protecting consumers from fraud and deception. The court ruled in favor of Rosenbaum Company upholding Pennsylvania's "Apple Barrel" statute which mandated apples must be packed in standardized barrels or packages before being offered for sale within its jurisdiction. The justices held that states have broad powers under their police authority to regulate businesses when it is done reasonably and not arbitrarily; they can enact legislation aimed at preventing fraud even if it interferes with private contracts or trade practices. This decision reinforced states' rights to regulate commerce within their borders while also emphasizing consumer protection against fraudulent practices.

In the dissenting opinion for Jackman v. Rosenbaum Company, Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision was based on an incorrect interpretation of the law and a misunderstanding of its purpose. He contended that the statute in question did not intend to protect buyers from their own mistakes or lack of diligence but rather to prevent fraud by sellers. Therefore, he believed that it should only apply when there is evidence of fraudulent intent by the seller, which was not proven in this case. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on technicalities and literal interpretations instead of considering broader legal principles and societal implications. In his view, such an approach could lead to unjust outcomes and undermine public confidence in judicial decisions.