In the case of Coates et al. v. City of Cincinnati, 1970, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a city ordinance in Cincinnati was unconstitutional because it was overly broad and vague. The ordinance made it illegal for three or more people to assemble on sidewalks and behave "annoyingly." A group of individuals were arrested under this law during a civil rights demonstration and challenged its constitutionality. The court held that the term "annoying" is too subjective, as what one person finds annoying another might not; therefore making enforcement arbitrary which violates due process rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, they stated that such an ambiguous law could potentially deter free speech and assembly protected by First Amendment rights out of fear from citizens about whether their behavior would be interpreted as 'annoying'. Therefore, laws must be clear enough so ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited.

In the dissenting opinion for Coates v. City of Cincinnati, Justice Black argued that the majority's decision to strike down a city ordinance as unconstitutionally vague was incorrect. He believed that the ordinance, which prohibited three or more people from assembling on sidewalks and behaving annoyingly, was clear in its intent and language. Furthermore, he contended that it served a legitimate purpose by preserving public order and preventing potentially disruptive behavior. According to him, this law did not infringe upon First Amendment rights because it only targeted conduct rather than speech or assembly per se. Thus, he disagreed with the majority's view that this law could be used arbitrarily against innocent gatherings based on subjective interpretations of 'annoyance'. Instead, he interpreted it as an objective standard aimed at maintaining peace in public spaces.