In the 1907 U.S. Supreme Court case Lee v. State of New Jersey, defendant Sing Lee was convicted in a New Jersey court for operating a laundry business on Sunday, violating state law prohibiting certain types of work on Sundays. The defendant argued that this law infringed upon his Fourteenth Amendment rights by interfering with his ability to freely practice his religion (Buddhism), which does not observe Sunday as a day of rest. However, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction and ruled against Lee's claim. The court found that while religious freedom is protected under the Constitution, it does not exempt individuals from laws governing public health and safety or general welfare - such as those regulating labor hours or days of operation - even if these laws may indirectly interfere with some religious practices. This decision reinforced states' power to regulate commercial activities for societal benefit without being considered unconstitutional interference with religious freedom.

In the dissenting opinion for Lee v. State of New Jersey, it was argued that the defendant's constitutional rights were violated due to a lack of proper legal representation during his trial. The dissenting justices believed that this violation was so severe and fundamental that it warranted a reversal of the conviction. They contended that every individual has an inherent right to competent counsel in order to ensure fair proceedings and just outcomes within our judicial system. Without such representation, they asserted, there is no guarantee against wrongful convictions or unjust punishments being imposed upon innocent individuals. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority ruling which upheld Lee's conviction despite these concerns about his legal representation at trial.