In the 1920 case of Nicchia v. People of the State of New York, Josephine Nicchia challenged a New York law that required dog owners to obtain licenses for their pets and limited ownership to three dogs per household. The Supreme Court upheld the law, rejecting Nicchia's argument that it violated her Fourteenth Amendment rights by depriving her of property without due process. The court found that dogs are subject to police power because they can be dangerous and disruptive, so states have broad authority to regulate them in order to protect public safety and welfare. Furthermore, while acknowledging that some aspects of the licensing scheme might seem arbitrary or unfair (such as its failure to distinguish between different breeds), it concluded these were matters for legislative judgment rather than constitutional adjudication.

In the dissenting opinion for NICCHIA v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. argued that the law in question was not a reasonable exercise of police power and thus violated Nicchia's 14th Amendment rights to due process and equal protection under the law. He contended that while states have broad powers to enact laws for public health, safety, or morals, this particular statute went beyond those limits by imposing an arbitrary fee on dog owners without any clear connection to public welfare. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's interpretation of "due process," arguing it should protect individuals from unreasonable state actions like this one. In his view, there was no rational basis for distinguishing between dogs owned by residents versus non-residents or charging different fees based on such distinction; hence it constituted discrimination against out-of-state citizens.