Sherman v. Robertson was a Supreme Court case from 1935 that dealt with the issue of whether a state could require a person to pay a fee in order to obtain a license to practice a profession. The case was brought by a physician, Dr. Sherman, who was denied a license to practice medicine in the state of Arkansas because he refused to pay the required fee. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dr. Sherman, holding that the state of Arkansas could not require a fee to be paid in order to obtain a license to practice a profession. The Court reasoned that such a requirement would be a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, as it would place an undue burden on those who could not afford to pay the fee. The Court also held that the state of Arkansas could not deny a license to practice medicine to Dr. Sherman simply because he refused to pay the fee. The Court reasoned that the state had a duty to protect the public from unqualified practitioners, and that the fee requirement was not necessary to accomplish this goal. The decision in Sherman v. Robertson was an important victory for those who sought to protect the rights of individuals to practice their chosen profession without having to pay a fee. The Court's ruling established that the state could not impose a fee requirement on those seeking to practice a profession, and that the state had a duty to protect the public from unqualified practitioners.

In the dissenting opinion of Sherman v. Robertson, Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision was wrong and should be overturned. He believed that the state had a right to regulate certain activities within its borders, including those related to alcohol consumption, as long as it did not conflict with any federal laws or regulations. Furthermore, he argued that while states may have some authority over matters such as public health and safety, they do not have absolute power when it comes to regulating private conduct in areas where Congress has acted first. In this case specifically, he noted that Congress had already passed legislation prohibiting interstate transportation of liquor for sale or use in violation of state law; thus making any further regulation by individual states unnecessary and unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. Ultimately then Justice Holmes concluded that since there was no evidence presented at trial showing how allowing people from other states into Oklahoma would harm public health or safety in Oklahoma itself – which is what must be shown before a state can constitutionally restrict interstate commerce – then Sherman’s conviction should be reversed on appeal due to lack of sufficient evidence supporting his conviction under Oklahoma law