In the case of Oklahoma Gin Company v. State of Oklahoma, 1919, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state law that required cotton gins to obtain a license and pay an annual fee violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The plaintiff argued that this requirement unfairly targeted their business while exempting other similar businesses from these obligations. However, the court ruled in favor of Oklahoma by upholding its right to regulate businesses within its borders for public welfare purposes under police powers granted by states' rights doctrines. The justices found no violation of equal protection as they believed it was reasonable for lawmakers to differentiate between types of businesses based on their potential impact on public health and safety or economic conditions.

In the dissenting opinion for Oklahoma Gin Company v. State of Oklahoma, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring cotton gins to be licensed and regulated by a public service corporation commission infringed upon individual property rights without due process. The dissenting justices contended that this regulation was not necessary for public welfare or safety, but rather served as an arbitrary interference with private business operations. They maintained that while states have broad powers under their police authority, these powers should not extend so far as to allow them to control and regulate all industries within their borders at will. In essence, they believed the ruling set a dangerous precedent where any business could potentially be subjected to similar regulations regardless of its impact on public interest or necessity.