In the case of Baender v. Barnett, 1920, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Sheriff Barnett of Alameda County, California. The petitioner, Baender had been arrested and charged with violating a state law that prohibited non-citizens from displaying flags or emblems other than those of the United States or any state within it. He challenged his arrest on constitutional grounds arguing that this law violated his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and expression as well as Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause because it discriminated against foreign-born residents who were not yet citizens. The Supreme Court upheld Baender’s conviction stating that while he was free to express his views verbally under First Amendment protections, these did not extend to symbolic expressions such as flag displays which could incite public disorder or violence especially during wartime (World War I). Furthermore, they found no violation under Fourteenth amendment since states have broad powers over naturalization process and can impose reasonable restrictions on non-citizens' activities for maintaining peace and order.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Baender v. Barnett, as Sheriff of Alameda County, California (1920) argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting non-English languages from being taught in schools was unconstitutional. The dissenters believed this law violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by unfairly targeting immigrant communities and infringing upon their right to maintain cultural heritage through language education. They also contended that such laws could potentially lead to further discrimination against minority groups and create an environment where only one culture is deemed acceptable or superior. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s view that teaching foreign languages could pose a threat to public safety or welfare; instead, they saw it as an essential part of America’s diverse society.