In Trenouth v. San Francisco, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a city ordinance that prohibited the sale of liquor within a certain distance of a school was constitutional. The plaintiff, Trenouth, was a liquor dealer who had been convicted of violating the ordinance. He argued that the ordinance violated his right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the ordinance was constitutional. The Court reasoned that the ordinance was a valid exercise of the police power of the state, and that it was not an unreasonable or arbitrary restriction on the plaintiff's right to do business. The Court also noted that the ordinance was designed to protect the health and safety of the public, and that it was not an unreasonable or arbitrary restriction on the plaintiff's right to do business. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the ordinance was a valid exercise of the police power of the state, and that it was not an unreasonable or arbitrary restriction on the plaintiff's right to do business. The Court also noted that the ordinance was designed to protect the health and safety of the public, and that it was not an unreasonable or arbitrary restriction on the plaintiff's right to do business.

In Trenouth v. San Francisco, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a city ordinance that prohibited certain types of businesses from operating within its limits violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The majority opinion held that it did not violate this clause because there were rational reasons for enacting such an ordinance and no evidence of discrimination against any particular group or class. Justice Field dissented, arguing that while cities may have valid reasons for regulating business activities within their boundaries, they must do so in a way that does not discriminate against individuals based on race or other protected characteristics. He argued further that if the city had enacted an ordinance which applied equally to all persons regardless of race or other protected characteristics then it would be constitutional; however, since this was not done here he concluded that the ordinance violated equal protection principles and should be struck down as unconstitutional.