In Connell v. Higginbotham et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a Florida statute, which required all state employees to take an oath not to lend aid or support in any way to the Communist Party, was unconstitutional. The case involved two professors at Florida State University who were fired for refusing to sign this loyalty oath. They argued that it violated their First Amendment rights of free speech and association as well as their Fourteenth Amendment right of due process under law. The court agreed with them and held that such broad restrictions on political activities by public employees are impermissible because they infringe upon constitutionally protected freedoms without sufficiently furthering any compelling state interest.

In the dissenting opinion for Connell v. Higginbotham, Justice Douglas argued that the majority's decision to uphold Florida's durational residency requirement for voting in state elections was a violation of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. He contended that such requirements were discriminatory and unjustified by any compelling state interest. According to him, these laws disenfranchised citizens who had recently moved within or into the state, thereby creating two classes of voters: those who could vote immediately and those who had to wait until they met arbitrary residency deadlines set by each individual state. Furthermore, he pointed out that there was no evidence suggesting new residents needed time to become familiar with local issues before being allowed to vote; rather it seemed more likely this rule served as an unnecessary barrier preventing certain groups from participating in democratic processes.