In the case of McGowan v. American Pressed Tan Bark Company, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to determine whether a state law that prohibited the sale of tan bark in certain forms was unconstitutional. The plaintiff, McGowan, argued that the law violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which prohibits states from denying any person the equal protection of the laws. The Supreme Court held that the law was constitutional. The Court reasoned that the law was a valid exercise of the state's police power, which allows states to pass laws to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. The Court also noted that the law was not discriminatory, as it applied to all persons equally. The Court concluded that the law was a valid exercise of the state's police power and did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As such, the Court affirmed the lower court's decision and upheld the law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in McGowan v. American Pressed Tan Bark Company, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to an unjust result. He argued that the Court should have applied a more expansive interpretation of "injury" as it had done in prior cases, which would have allowed for recovery under this case's facts. In particular, he noted that while there may not be any physical injury or tangible damage caused by a breach of contract, such breaches can still cause economic losses and other forms of harm which should be compensable under law. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that allowing parties to recover damages for non-physical injuries is necessary in order to ensure fair compensation when contracts are breached; otherwise innocent parties could suffer significant financial losses without any recourse or remedy available from courts. Ultimately then, Justice Field concluded his dissent by urging the Court to reconsider its ruling on this issue so as not create an inequitable situation where one party can escape liability despite having wrongfully broken their contractual obligations with another party.