In the case of Conner v. City of Hammond in 1967, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving zoning laws and religious freedom. The appellant, Reverend John H. Conner, was fined by the city for holding church services in his home which was located within a residential zone where churches were not permitted according to local ordinances. Rev. Conner argued that this violated his First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion as well as Fourteenth Amendment rights regarding equal protection under law. The court held that while cities have power to enforce zoning regulations for public welfare purposes such as controlling traffic congestion or maintaining neighborhood character, these powers must be exercised reasonably and cannot infringe upon constitutional rights without compelling justification. The court found no compelling reason why religious activities should be treated differently from other forms of assembly like social clubs or lodges which were allowed in residential zones under Hammond's ordinance. Therefore, it concluded that treating religious assemblies less favorably than non-religious ones amounted to an unconstitutional infringement on free exercise of religion and reversed lower courts' decisions upholding the fine against Rev.Connor.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Conner v. City of Hammond argued that the majority's decision to strike down a city ordinance as unconstitutionally vague was misguided. The dissent, led by Justice Black, contended that the ordinance was not overly broad or vague but rather provided clear guidelines for behavior and conduct within public parks. They believed it clearly prohibited actions such as fighting, quarreling, dog fights and other disturbances which could disrupt peace and order in public spaces. Furthermore, they asserted that any potential vagueness did not justify striking down an entire law; instead minor issues should be addressed on a case-by-case basis when they arise during enforcement of the law. In their view, this approach would better serve justice than invalidating laws designed to protect citizens from disruptive behaviors in public places.