In the case of Rice v. Ames in 1900, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Rice, claimed that he was entitled to certain properties under his father's will which had been sold by the defendant, Ames. However, these sales were made before Rice reached legal age and therefore argued they should be considered void as per Iowa law at that time. The court ruled against him stating that although there might have been some irregularities in how the estate was managed after his father's death; it did not necessarily mean those transactions were illegal or invalid since they were done for paying off debts of his father’s estate and providing maintenance for himself and siblings during their minority years. Therefore, even though he wasn't legally an adult when those decisions were made on behalf of him by others (guardians), it didn't automatically make them unlawful or unjustifiable.

In the dissenting opinion for Rice v. Ames, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold an Iowa law prohibiting the sale of cigarettes violated individual rights and overstepped state authority. The dissenting justices contended that this law infringed upon personal liberties by dictating what individuals could consume or purchase, a matter they believed should be left up to personal discretion rather than legislative control. They also questioned whether states had the constitutional power to enact such prohibitions in light of their potential impact on interstate commerce. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential inconsistencies and arbitrary enforcement resulting from different states having differing laws regarding cigarette sales. Ultimately, these justices felt that while public health concerns were important considerations for legislation, they did not justify encroachments on individual freedoms or disruptions of national commercial uniformity.