In Thompson v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a case involving an individual who was convicted for selling liquor without a license in violation of state law. The defendant argued that he had been denied due process because the jury which convicted him included members who were prejudiced against his business as a saloon keeper and thus could not be impartial jurors. He also claimed that his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated when he was fined $60 and sentenced to 20 days in jail, arguing this punishment was excessive and cruel. The Supreme Court disagreed with these arguments, stating that there is no constitutional right to sell intoxicating liquors; it's within states' police power to regulate or prohibit such sales entirely if they see fit for public welfare reasons. As for claims about juror bias, while acknowledging potential prejudice might exist among some community members towards certain occupations like saloon keeping, it doesn't necessarily disqualify them from serving as fair jurors unless specific bias can be proven against defendants themselves. Regarding allegations of cruel and unusual punishment under Eighth Amendment standards (as incorporated by Fourteenth), court held fines or imprisonment terms set by legislatures are generally presumed valid unless so grossly excessive compared to offense committed as being wholly unreasonable.

In the dissenting opinion for Thompson v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, it was argued that the defendant's constitutional rights were violated due to an unfair trial process. The dissenting justices believed that Thompson had not been given a fair opportunity to present his defense or challenge evidence against him, which they saw as a violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. They also took issue with how quickly the trial had proceeded and questioned whether this haste may have compromised its fairness and thoroughness. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constituted "reasonable doubt," arguing that their definition was too narrow and could potentially lead to wrongful convictions in future cases if left unchallenged.