In the case of Joines v. Patterson et al., 1926, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with deciding on a dispute involving land ownership and inheritance laws in North Carolina. The plaintiff, Joines, claimed that he had inherited property from his father who died intestate (without a will). However, the defendants argued that they were rightful owners of the property as it was purchased by their predecessor before Joines' father's death. The lower court ruled in favor of Patterson et al., stating that under North Carolina law at the time of purchase by defendant’s predecessor, an illegitimate child could not inherit from his or her biological parent unless there was subsequent marriage between parents which did not occur here. Joines appealed to the Supreme Court arguing this state law violated Equal Protection Clause of Fourteenth Amendment but failed to convince justices who affirmed lower court’s decision unanimously. They held that states have broad power over descent and distribution rules within their jurisdiction and can make reasonable classifications among potential heirs based on legitimacy status without violating constitutional rights.

The dissenting opinion in the Joines v. Patterson case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a North Carolina law prohibiting union membership was an overreach of judicial power and violated workers' constitutional rights. The dissenting justices believed that the statute interfered with individuals' freedom of association, which they saw as protected by the First Amendment. They also contended that it infringed upon workers' right to organize for collective bargaining purposes, thereby undermining their ability to negotiate better working conditions and wages. Furthermore, they criticized the majority for failing to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating how union activities posed a threat justifying such restrictive legislation. In essence, these justices felt that this ruling set a dangerous precedent by allowing states too much latitude in limiting citizens’ civil liberties under vague public interest claims.