Shields v. Ohio is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1895. The case involved a challenge to an Ohio law that prohibited the sale of alcohol on Sundays. The plaintiff, Shields, was a saloonkeeper who was charged with violating the law. He argued that the law violated his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the law was constitutional. The Court reasoned that the law was a valid exercise of the state's police power and that it did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also noted that the law was not overly restrictive and that it was not an unreasonable burden on the plaintiff's right to do business. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the Ohio law prohibiting the sale of alcohol on Sundays was constitutional and did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that the law was a valid exercise of the state's police power and that it was not overly restrictive or an unreasonable burden on the plaintiff's right to do business.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Shields v. Ohio, arguing that the state of Ohio had violated the Fourteenth Amendment by denying a black man his right to serve on a jury. He argued that while states have broad discretion when it comes to selecting jurors, they cannot discriminate based on race or color. Justice Field noted that this was not an isolated incident and pointed out other cases where African Americans were denied their rights as citizens due to racial discrimination. He concluded by stating that if such practices are allowed to continue unchecked, then all citizens will be deprived of their constitutional rights regardless of race or color.