In the case of Mallinckrodt Chemical Works v. State of Missouri, at the Relation of Jones, Circuit Attorney of City of St. Louis (1914), the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state could regulate emissions from a private factory that were causing harm to public health and welfare. The chemical company argued that such regulation constituted an unconstitutional taking without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. However, in its decision, the court upheld Missouri's right to enforce regulations on harmful emissions as part of its police power - i.e., its authority to enact laws for public safety and welfare - even if it resulted in financial loss for businesses affected by these rules. This ruling established an important precedent affirming states' rights to protect their citizens' health and wellbeing through environmental regulation.

In the dissenting opinion for Mallinckrodt Chemical Works v. State of Missouri, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring companies to pay into a workers' compensation fund violated constitutional principles. The dissenting justices believed that this requirement amounted to an unlawful taking of property without due process, as it forced businesses to contribute financially towards potential future injuries or illnesses among their employees - something they might not ever be responsible for causing. They also contended that such laws unfairly singled out certain industries and employers, creating unequal treatment under the law. Furthermore, they expressed concern about states having too much power over private enterprise and warned against allowing legislatures unchecked authority in regulating business practices.