The Ratner et al. v. California case in 1966 revolved around the constitutionality of a California statute that prohibited the sale or possession of hypodermic needles and syringes without a prescription. The appellants, who were convicted under this law, argued that it violated their rights to privacy and due process as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. They also contended that it was an unreasonable exercise of police power because it did not directly relate to public health or safety concerns but rather aimed at curbing drug abuse - an issue they believed should be addressed through other means such as education or rehabilitation programs. However, the Supreme Court upheld their convictions with Justice Clark delivering its opinion which stated that states have broad discretion in determining what constitutes a legitimate exercise of police power for protecting public health and welfare; thus, they can enact laws like this one if deemed necessary for achieving these objectives even if there might be other more effective solutions available. Furthermore, he dismissed appellants' claims about violation of constitutional rights saying those do not extend to actions detrimental to society like illicit drug use facilitated by unrestricted access to injection equipment; hence why regulating them does not infringe upon any fundamental liberties guaranteed by Constitution.

In the dissenting opinion for Ratner et al. v. California, Justice Douglas argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting picketing on private property was an infringement of First Amendment rights. He contended that peaceful picketing is a form of free speech and should be protected as such, regardless of where it takes place. Furthermore, he suggested that this ruling could potentially lead to further restrictions on freedom of expression in other contexts beyond labor disputes or protests against businesses' practices. In his view, the court had failed to adequately balance property rights with constitutional freedoms and had instead favored one over the other without sufficient justification.