In the case of Baines et al. v. City of Danville, 1965, a group of African American protesters were arrested for marching against segregation in Danville, Virginia and charged with contempt by violating an injunction that prohibited demonstrations without a permit. The defendants argued that their constitutional rights to free speech and assembly had been violated as they were not given notice or opportunity to challenge the injunction before being arrested. They also claimed racial discrimination was at play because white supremacist groups had previously demonstrated without permits but faced no legal repercussions. The U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the demonstrators stating that due process requires notice and hearing before imposition of criminal sanctions; thus, it was unconstitutional for them to be held in contempt without having been given an opportunity to dispute the validity of the order they allegedly disobeyed.

In the dissenting opinion for Baines et al. v. City of Danville, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to overturn a state court ruling was an overreach of federal power and violated principles of federalism. He contended that it is not within the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to review decisions made by state courts on issues related to their own laws unless there is a clear violation of constitutional rights, which he did not believe was present in this case. Furthermore, he expressed concern about the potential implications for civil liberties if local governments were unable to enforce their own ordinances without fear of intervention from higher courts. In his view, such interference could undermine public order and respect for law enforcement at a local level.