In the 1930 case of Storaasli v. Minnesota, Olaf M. Storaasli challenged his conviction for selling securities without a license in violation of state law. He argued that the statute requiring licensing was unconstitutional because it interfered with interstate commerce and deprived him of property without due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. The U.S Supreme Court upheld his conviction, ruling that states have the power to regulate businesses within their borders as long as they do not interfere with interstate commerce or violate constitutional rights. In this case, Minnesota's requirement for a license to sell securities did not infringe upon either stipulation; therefore, it was deemed constitutional by the court.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Storaasli v. Minnesota argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring foreign-born residents to register with local authorities was an overreach of state power and violated individual rights. The dissent contended that such laws unfairly targeted immigrants, infringing on their right to privacy and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures as protected by the Fourth Amendment. They also believed it created unnecessary burdens for these individuals who were already legally residing in the country, potentially discouraging them from pursuing citizenship or other legal statuses due to fear of persecution or discrimination. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential misuse or abuse of this information by government officials which could lead to further violations of civil liberties.