In the 1907 case of Lang v. New Jersey, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The appellant, Lang, was convicted in New Jersey for selling liquor without a license and sentenced to pay a fine or serve time in jail if he failed to do so. He argued that his conviction violated his constitutional right to due process because he wasn't given an opportunity for trial by jury as guaranteed by state law at that time. However, the court held that while states are required to adhere to their own laws when prosecuting crimes within their jurisdiction, any failure on this front does not necessarily constitute a violation of federal due process rights unless it results in some fundamental unfairness prejudicially affecting rights secured by other parts of Constitution too.

In the dissenting opinion for Lang v. New Jersey, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision violated Lang's constitutional rights to a fair trial and due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. He contended that by allowing a jury to determine both guilt and punishment in one deliberation, it was impossible to ensure that their verdict was not influenced by prejudice or passion. Furthermore, he believed this practice could lead juries to impose harsher sentences than they might otherwise have done if they had been required to consider guilt separately from punishment. This concern was particularly relevant given the severity of potential punishments available at the time - including death penalty cases where jurors were asked simultaneously whether defendants should be executed or imprisoned for life without parole. In such instances, Justice Harlan feared there would be an increased risk of arbitrary sentencing decisions driven more by emotion than reason.