In Berkman et al. v. United States (1918), the Supreme Court upheld convictions of Alexander Berkman and Emma Goldman, prominent anarchists who were charged with violating the Espionage Act of 1917 for their anti-draft activities during World War I. The defendants had distributed literature encouraging men to resist conscription into military service, arguing that it was a form of involuntary servitude prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment. However, the court ruled that such actions posed a clear danger to national security in wartime and thus fell outside constitutional protections for free speech and against involuntary servitude. The decision affirmed broad government powers to suppress dissent in times of war under national security grounds.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Berkman et al. v. United States argued that the defendants' convictions for conspiracy to obstruct military recruitment during World War I should be overturned due to lack of evidence and violation of free speech rights under the First Amendment. The dissenters believed that there was insufficient proof showing a clear intent by the defendants to interfere with enlistment efforts, as required by law for conviction on charges of conspiracy. They also contended that expressing opposition to war or criticism towards government policies did not necessarily equate to actively discouraging enlistment or inciting insubordination among soldiers, thus such expressions should be protected under constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and assembly.