The case of Thornton et al. v. Duffy et al., 1920, revolved around the issue of workers' compensation and the constitutionality of state laws that mandated it. The plaintiffs were employers who challenged an Ohio law requiring them to contribute to a state insurance fund for worker's compensation or provide equivalent private insurance coverage. They argued this violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights by depriving them of property without due process and denying equal protection under the law since not all businesses were required to participate in such schemes. However, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of Ohio’s Workers’ Compensation Act, ruling that it did not violate any constitutional provisions. The court found that states had broad powers to regulate business activities within their borders for public welfare purposes including health and safety regulations like workers' compensation systems which aimed at protecting employees from workplace injuries or illnesses.

In the dissenting opinion for Thornton et al. v. Duffy et al., Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold Ohio's Workmen’s Compensation Act, which required employers to contribute to a state insurance fund that would compensate workers injured on the job. He argued that this law was unconstitutional because it violated an employer's due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by forcing them into a compulsory system without their consent and without providing adequate compensation in return. Furthermore, he contended that such legislation interfered with freedom of contract between employers and employees, as well as intruded upon matters reserved for individual states under principles of federalism.