In the case of Charles W. Burson, Attorney General and Reporter for Tennessee v. Mary Rebecca Freeman (1991), the U.S Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee statute that prohibited electioneering within 100 feet of a polling place on Election Day. The respondent, Mary Rebecca Freeman, argued that this law violated her First Amendment rights to free speech by limiting political expression in public areas during elections. However, the court ruled in favor of Burson with a 5-4 decision stating that preventing voter intimidation and maintaining peace at polling places were significant government interests which justified restricting certain forms of speech under these circumstances. This ruling established an exception to free-speech protections for what is known as "campaign-free zones," allowing states to enforce similar laws aimed at protecting voters from undue influence or harassment near voting sites.

In the dissenting opinion for Charles W. Burson, Attorney General and Reporter for Tennessee v. Mary Rebecca Freeman, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the majority's decision to uphold a 100-foot no-solicitation zone around polling places was an overreach of government power that infringed upon First Amendment rights. He contended that there were less restrictive means available to ensure orderly voting without suppressing political speech entirely within this area. Furthermore, he pointed out inconsistencies in how different types of solicitation were treated under this law - commercial solicitation was allowed while political solicitation was not - which he believed demonstrated its unconstitutionality. In his view, such restrictions on free speech should be narrowly tailored and only applied when absolutely necessary; in this case, he did not believe it met those criteria.