In the case of Bloss et al. v. Dykema, 1969, a group of taxpayers in Michigan challenged the constitutionality of a state law that allowed public funds to be used for non-public schools. The plaintiffs argued that this violated both the First Amendment's Establishment Clause and Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause as it provided financial aid to religiously affiliated schools. However, before reaching the Supreme Court level, lower courts dismissed their claims on grounds they lacked standing - meaning they did not have sufficient connection to or harm from the law to challenge it. The U.S Supreme Court affirmed these decisions without issuing an opinion; thus upholding Michigan’s statute allowing public funding for private education under certain conditions and maintaining that taxpayers do not automatically have standing simply because they are taxpayers.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Bloss et al. v. Dykema argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Michigan law prohibiting picketing near private residences was an infringement on First Amendment rights. The dissenters believed that this ruling would set a dangerous precedent, allowing states to limit free speech and peaceful protest under the guise of protecting residential privacy. They contended that while some restrictions may be necessary for maintaining public order or preventing coercion, these should not extend to completely banning such activities in certain locations without clear evidence of harm or disruption being caused by them. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies between this ruling and previous decisions where similar laws had been struck down as unconstitutional, suggesting it represented a shift towards greater state control over individual liberties.