In the 1940 case Marsh v. Buck, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on a dispute involving Nebraska's Secretary of State and several citizens over a state law that regulated fees for grain warehouse services. The plaintiffs argued that this law violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights by depriving them of property without due process. However, the court disagreed with this argument and upheld Nebraska's right to regulate these fees as part of its police powers to protect public health, safety, and welfare. The justices reasoned that such regulation was not arbitrary or discriminatory but rather served a legitimate public interest in preventing excessive charges for necessary services like grain storage.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Marsh v. Buck argued that the Nebraska law, which allowed for a lien on crops grown on rented land as security for rent payments, did not violate the Contract Clause of the Constitution. The dissenters believed that this law was a reasonable exercise of state power to protect landlords and ensure they received their due rent. They contended that it did not impair any contractual obligations because it applied only to future contracts and thus could be factored into those agreements by both parties. Furthermore, they suggested that if such legislation were deemed unconstitutional under the Contract Clause, then many other laws regulating economic relations would also have to be struck down - an outcome they viewed as undesirable and unnecessary.