In the case of Reitz v. Mealey, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a challenge to New York's Motor Vehicle Financial Security Act. The petitioner, Reitz, had his driving privileges suspended after he was involved in an accident and failed to post security as required by the act because he could not afford it. He argued that this violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection under law since wealthier individuals would be able to retain their licenses simply by posting security. However, the court ruled against him stating that states have broad power when regulating motor vehicles for public safety purposes. They held that requiring drivers who are potentially liable for accidents to show financial responsibility does not violate constitutional protections but rather promotes road safety by ensuring those at fault can cover damages they may cause.

In the dissenting opinion for Reitz v. Mealey, it was argued that the New York statute in question violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The law allowed for an individual's driver's license to be suspended if they were involved in a motor vehicle accident and unable to pay any resulting damages or judgments. The dissenting justices believed this law unfairly penalized those who were financially incapable of meeting such obligations, creating a class-based distinction that did not serve a legitimate state interest. They also contended that driving is more than just a privilege; it is often essential for employment and daily life, especially in rural areas where public transportation may not be readily available. Therefore, suspending someone’s license due to inability to pay could have severe consequences on their livelihoods which would further exacerbate their financial difficulties.