In the case of Morrison et al. v. California (1933), the U.S Supreme Court examined whether a California law that required defendants in criminal cases to prove their innocence violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees fair treatment through normal judicial system. The law in question was part of an agricultural code that made it illegal for any person not entitled to possession to have farm produce in his or her possession and placed burden on defendant to show rightful ownership or face conviction. The court ruled 7-2 against Morrison, upholding California's statute as constitutional and stating that states had broad powers under police power doctrine to regulate economic activities such as agriculture within their borders without violating due process rights. However, they also noted this does not mean all presumptions are valid; each must be tested by its reasonableness.

In the dissenting opinion for Morrison et al. v. California, Justice Cardozo argued that the burden of proof should not be shifted to defendants in cases involving allegations of illegal contracts with non-citizens ineligible for citizenship under federal law. He contended that such a shift was unconstitutional as it violated due process rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority's decision upheld a California statute requiring defendants to prove their innocence rather than prosecutors proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt - an approach Cardozo saw as fundamentally unfair and contrary to established legal principles. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuses this could lead to, particularly regarding racial discrimination against Asian immigrants who were often targeted by these laws at the time.