The U.S. Supreme Court case Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp of Bay View et al., 1968, centered around the constitutionality of Wisconsin's prejudgment garnishment procedure which allowed creditors to freeze a debtor's wages without prior notice or hearing. The plaintiff, Mrs. Sniadach, had her wages frozen by Family Finance Corporation due to an unpaid debt and she argued that this action violated her rights under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. In a 7-1 decision in favor of Sniadach, the court held that such procedures were indeed unconstitutional as they deprived individuals of property without proper procedural safeguards against mistaken deprivation - specifically noting the lack of opportunity for a preliminary hearing before wage seizure could occur. This landmark ruling significantly impacted future cases related to consumer protection and debt collection practices across America; it established precedent for requiring notice and an opportunity to be heard before certain types of creditor actions can take place.

In the dissenting opinion for Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to strike down Wisconsin's prejudgment garnishment statute was a departure from established principles of constitutional law. He contended that it is not within the Court’s purview to decide whether or not a state law is wise, fair, or efficient but rather if it violates any specific prohibition in the Constitution. The justice believed there was no such violation in this case and criticized his colleagues for using vague notions of "due process" as an excuse to impose their personal views on what constitutes good public policy. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential ramifications of this ruling on other types of prejudgment remedies used by states and warned against judicial overreach into legislative territory.