In the case of Stadelman et al. v. Miner et al., 1917, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state law in Oregon that regulated working hours for women was constitutional or not. The plaintiffs, who were employers, argued that this law infringed on their freedom to contract and thus violated the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. However, the court upheld the constitutionality of such laws by ruling in favor of defendants (the State). It held that states have a legitimate interest in protecting women's health which could be adversely affected by long working hours; hence they can regulate labor conditions accordingly without violating any constitutional rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Stadelman et al. v. Miner et al., it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting certain types of employment contracts conflicted with previous Supreme Court rulings and infringed upon individual liberty rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissenters contended that such laws should only be upheld if they serve a clear public interest, which in their view, this one did not. They believed that individuals should have the freedom to enter into any contract they choose unless there is an explicit reason why such a contract would harm society as a whole. In this case, they saw no evidence of such harm and thus disagreed with upholding restrictions on contractual freedom based on mere speculation about potential negative effects.