In Spraul v. Louisiana, the United States Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of a Louisiana statute that prohibited the sale of intoxicating liquors within four miles of any schoolhouse. The plaintiff, Spraul, was a saloonkeeper who was convicted of violating the statute. He argued that the statute violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees the right to due process of law. The Supreme Court held that the statute was constitutional. The Court reasoned that the statute was a valid exercise of the police power of the state, and that it was not an unreasonable or arbitrary restriction on the right to sell intoxicating liquors. The Court also noted that the statute was not an absolute prohibition on the sale of intoxicating liquors, but rather a reasonable regulation of the sale of such liquors. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the Louisiana statute prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors within four miles of any schoolhouse was a valid exercise of the police power of the state and did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Spraul v. Louisiana, arguing that a state cannot constitutionally impose an additional punishment for a crime after it has already been punished by another jurisdiction. He argued that this was contrary to the principles of double jeopardy and due process of law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Field further noted that if such punishments were allowed, then states could effectively punish individuals multiple times for one offense, which would be unconstitutional under both federal and state laws. Furthermore, he argued that allowing such punishments would create confusion among citizens who may not understand why they are being subjected to different penalties depending on where they committed their crimes or how many jurisdictions had previously punished them for those same offenses. Finally, Justice Field concluded his dissent with a warning about what might happen if states were allowed to impose additional punishments: "The result will be chaos."