Leisy v. Hardin was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1895. The case involved a dispute between a brewery and a saloon owner in Iowa. The brewery, Leisy, had refused to sell beer to the saloon owner, Hardin, because he had not paid for beer he had previously purchased. Hardin sued Leisy, claiming that the brewery had violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by refusing to sell him beer. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Leisy, holding that the Sherman Antitrust Act did not apply to the sale of beer between two private parties. The Court reasoned that the Act was intended to protect competition in the marketplace, and that the sale of beer between two private parties did not constitute a restraint of trade. The Court also held that the state of Iowa had the right to regulate the sale of alcohol, and that the brewery was not in violation of any state laws. The decision in Leisy v. Hardin established that the Sherman Antitrust Act did not apply to the sale of beer between two private parties, and that the state had the right to regulate the sale of alcohol.

In the case of Leisy v. Hardin, Justice Harlan delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had failed to properly consider and apply established principles of constitutional law. He noted that while states have broad authority to regulate liquor sales, they must do so without infringing on individuals’ rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. In this case, Iowa had passed a law prohibiting any person from selling or manufacturing alcohol for sale within its borders; however, it exempted certain religious organizations from this prohibition. Justice Harlan argued that such an exemption was unconstitutional because it violated both equal protection and due process clauses by discriminating against those who did not belong to these religious organizations. Furthermore, he argued that even if there were some legitimate state interest in protecting public health and safety through regulating alcohol sales – as Iowa claimed – then all persons should be subject to similar regulations regardless of their religion or lack thereof. Therefore, Justice Harlan concluded that the Court should reverse its decision upholding Iowa’s discriminatory statute since it clearly violated fundamental constitutional protections guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment