The U.S. Supreme Court case Wear, Impleaded Sub Nom. Wear Sand Company, et al. v. State of Kansas Ex Rel Brewster, Attorney General (1917) revolved around the issue of whether a state could regulate and control the extraction of natural resources within its borders without violating the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause or interfering with interstate commerce regulations. The plaintiff was a sand company that operated in Kansas but sold most of its product out-of-state; it challenged a 1911 law limiting sand dredging to protect waterways and land from erosion damage as unconstitutional interference with their business operations under federal laws governing interstate trade. However, the court ruled in favor of Kansas by upholding states' rights to enact such legislation for conservation purposes if they do not discriminate against or unduly burden interstate commerce - which this law did not do according to them since it applied equally to all businesses regardless where their products ended up being sold at.

In the dissenting opinion for Wear v. State of Kansas, Justice McReynolds expressed his disagreement with the majority's decision to uphold a state law that prohibited corporations from owning or leasing farmland in Kansas. He argued that this law violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment because it arbitrarily discriminated against corporations without any reasonable basis. In particular, he pointed out that there was no evidence showing that corporate ownership of farmland posed any threat to public welfare or morals; instead, such ownership could actually promote economic development and prosperity by allowing more efficient use of resources. Furthermore, he contended that this law unfairly singled out corporations while leaving other types of business entities unaffected – an unequal treatment which lacked justification under constitutional principles.