In the case of Asher v. Texas, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a Texas statute that prohibited the sale of obscene material was unconstitutional. The case was brought by a bookseller, Asher, who was charged with selling obscene material in violation of the Texas statute. The Supreme Court held that the Texas statute was overly broad and violated the First Amendment right to free speech. The Court reasoned that the statute was too broad because it prohibited the sale of material that was not necessarily obscene, and that the statute did not provide any guidance as to what constituted obscenity. The Court also noted that the statute was overly broad because it did not provide any exceptions for material that had some redeeming social value. The Court concluded that the Texas statute was unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment right to free speech. As a result, the Supreme Court reversed the conviction of Asher and held that the Texas statute was unconstitutional.

In the case of Asher v. Texas, Justice Douglas wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had failed to properly consider and apply existing precedent when deciding on this case. He noted that previous cases had established that an individual's right to privacy was protected by the Fourth Amendment, and thus any search or seizure conducted without a warrant should be considered unconstitutional unless it falls within certain exceptions such as exigent circumstances or consent from the person being searched. In this particular instance, there was no evidence presented to suggest either of these two conditions were met; therefore, Justice Douglas concluded that the search conducted by police officers violated Mr. Asher's constitutional rights under both state and federal law. He further argued that since Mr. Asher did not give his consent for police officers to enter his home without a warrant they should have been required to obtain one before conducting their investigation - something they failed to do in this situation - making their actions illegal according to existing legal precedents set forth by prior court decisions