In the case of Tanner, Attorney General of the State of Washington v. Little in 1915, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state law that prohibited women from working as bartenders violated their constitutional rights. The plaintiff, Mrs. Little, argued that she had been unjustly discriminated against based on her gender and sought an injunction against enforcement of this law by Mr. Tanner, who served as Attorney General for Washington at the time. The court ruled in favor of Mr. Tanner and upheld the constitutionality of Washington's ban on female bartenders under its police powers to regulate public welfare and morals. It found no violation with respect to equal protection or due process clauses because it believed states have broad discretion when enacting laws related to health, safety or morality issues within their jurisdiction. This decision reflected prevailing societal norms about gender roles during early 20th century America where women were often excluded from certain occupations deemed unsuitable for them.

In the dissenting opinion for Tanner v. Little, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to strike down a Washington state law that prohibited private employment agencies from charging fees to job seekers. He argued that states have broad powers under their police authority to regulate businesses in order to protect public welfare and prevent fraud or exploitation. In his view, it was not unreasonable for Washington lawmakers to conclude that such agencies could take advantage of desperate job seekers by charging them excessive fees. Therefore, he believed this regulation did not violate due process rights as claimed by the plaintiff agency owner who challenged its constitutionality.