Morrill v. State of Wisconsin was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1895. The case involved a dispute between the State of Wisconsin and the plaintiff, John Morrill, over the constitutionality of a Wisconsin law that prohibited the sale of intoxicating liquors. Morrill argued that the law violated his right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the Wisconsin law was constitutional and did not violate Morrill's right to due process. The Court reasoned that the law was a valid exercise of the state's police power, which is the power of the state to regulate the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. The Court also held that the law was not an unreasonable or arbitrary exercise of the state's police power, and that it was not an infringement of Morrill's right to due process. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the Wisconsin law prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors was constitutional and did not violate Morrill's right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Justice Harlan delivered the dissenting opinion in Morrill v. State of Wisconsin, arguing that the majority's decision was an unconstitutional infringement on a citizen's right to due process and equal protection under the law. He argued that while it is true that states have broad powers to regulate their own internal affairs, they cannot do so if it violates fundamental constitutional rights. In this case, he believed Wisconsin had violated those rights by enacting a statute which allowed for property owners' land to be taken without just compensation or any form of judicial review prior to its seizure. Furthermore, Justice Harlan noted that since there were no safeguards in place against arbitrary action from state officials who could take advantage of such power with impunity, this constituted an unreasonable exercise of governmental authority and thus should not be upheld as constitutional. Finally, he concluded by stating his belief that all citizens are entitled to due process and equal protection under the law regardless of whether they reside within or outside a particular state’s borders; therefore any laws passed which violate these principles must be struck down as unconstitutional.