The Sperry and Hutchinson Company v. Rhodes case in 1910 involved the issue of whether trading stamps could be considered a form of lottery, which was illegal under Ohio state law at that time. The Sperry and Hutchinson Company (S&H) issued these stamps to customers who made purchases from certain retailers, with the promise that they could later exchange them for goods or cash once they had collected enough. However, an Ohio county prosecutor named Rhodes argued this constituted a lottery because it encouraged people to buy more than necessary in hopes of receiving rewards. S&H countered by saying their scheme was not based on chance but rather on customer loyalty and volume purchasing. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of S&H stating that their stamp system did not constitute a lottery as there was no element of chance involved - every customer knew exactly what they would receive based on how much they spent. This ruling allowed S&H's trading stamp business model to continue operating legally.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Sperry and Hutchinson Company v. Rhodes argued that the majority's decision was an overreach, infringing upon states' rights to regulate business within their borders. The justices contended that it is not within the Supreme Court's purview to determine whether a state law is wise or unwise, but rather if it violates constitutional principles. They emphasized that there was no clear violation of due process as claimed by Sperry and Hutchinson Company since Rhode Island had legitimate reasons for enacting its trading stamp law - namely consumer protection from deceptive practices. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of “property” under Fourteenth Amendment protections; arguing instead that S&H Green Stamps were more akin to contractual obligations than property rights per se.