In the case of Carey, Governor of New York, et al. v. Sugar et al., 1975, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving public access to government meetings in New York State. The plaintiffs argued that they had been denied their First Amendment rights when they were excluded from certain state legislative committee meetings and sought an injunction against such exclusions under federal law (42 U.S.C §1983). However, the defendants contended that these committees were not required to hold open sessions according to state law at that time. The District Court initially sided with the plaintiffs but was reversed by the Second Circuit court which held that no constitutional violation occurred as there was no established right for citizens or press members to attend all governmental meetings. On appeal, however, the Supreme Court affirmed this decision stating there is no broad-based constitutional right guaranteeing public access to all government functions and activities including legislative committee sessions. It also clarified that any changes regarding public access should be addressed through legislation rather than judicial intervention.

In the dissenting opinion for Carey, Governor of New York, et al. v. Sugar et al., Justice William Rehnquist disagreed with the majority's decision to strike down a New York law that prohibited picketing in front of private residences. He argued that this case was not about free speech but rather about "the right of an individual homeowner to be let alone." According to him, the First Amendment does not grant individuals unlimited rights to express their views wherever they wish; there are certain places where such activities can be limited or even banned entirely without infringing on constitutional freedoms. In his view, residential privacy is one area deserving such protection and he believed that states should have the authority to regulate conduct within these areas if it serves significant state interests like preserving domestic peace and tranquility.