In the 1909 case of Marbles v. Creecy, Chief of Police, the United States Supreme Court dealt with an issue concerning police power and individual rights. The petitioner, Marbles, was arrested by Creecy for violating a city ordinance in New Orleans that prohibited certain types of gambling. Marbles argued that his arrest was unlawful as he claimed to have been playing a game of skill rather than chance and thus not subject to the anti-gambling law. However, both lower courts ruled against him stating that it is within the purview of local authorities to determine what constitutes gambling under their laws. Upon reaching the Supreme Court, it upheld these rulings emphasizing on states' rights and powers in enforcing local ordinances even if they may seem unfair or arbitrary at times.

The dissenting opinion in the Marbles v. Creecy case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a law prohibiting gambling did not adequately consider its potential infringement on personal liberties. The dissenting justices contended that while it is within the state's power to regulate activities for public welfare, this should not extend to controlling individual behavior or choices when they do not directly harm others or society at large. They believed that such overreach could set a dangerous precedent, potentially leading to further encroachments on personal freedoms under the guise of protecting societal interests. Furthermore, they questioned whether there was sufficient evidence proving gambling as inherently harmful and deserving of blanket prohibition by law enforcement authorities.