Packard v. Banton was a U.S Supreme Court case in 1923 that dealt with the issue of whether or not New York's regulation of passenger vehicle services violated the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically regarding due process and equal protection clauses. The plaintiff, Packard, operated a for-hire vehicle service and challenged the constitutionality of a state law requiring him to obtain consent from local authorities before operating his business. He argued this law infringed on his right to conduct trade freely without unreasonable government interference. However, the court ruled against Packard stating that states have broad powers under their police authority to regulate businesses affecting public safety and welfare. Therefore, it held that such regulations did not violate any constitutional rights as long as they were reasonable and aimed at promoting public interest.

In the dissenting opinion for Packard v. Banton, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., joined by Justices Louis Brandeis and Harlan Fiske Stone, argued that the New York law regulating taxicab rates did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. They contended that it was within a state's police power to regulate businesses like taxi services in order to protect public welfare. The majority had ruled that such regulation constituted an unconstitutional deprivation of property without due process of law because it interfered with contractual freedom between private parties (the cab company and its customers). However, according to this dissenting view, economic regulations should be presumed constitutional unless they have no reasonable relation to a legitimate governmental purpose or are arbitrary or discriminatory. This perspective reflects what later became known as "judicial restraint" in matters of economic regulation - deferring more often than not to legislative judgments about how best to serve public interests.