In Connors v. United States (1894), the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a case involving an appeal by Patrick Connors, who was convicted of murder in Arizona Territory and sentenced to death. The main issue at hand was whether the trial court had erred in refusing to instruct the jury that they could consider lesser charges such as manslaughter or second-degree murder. The defense argued that there were mitigating circumstances which should have been considered by the jury, including evidence suggesting that Connors may have acted out of self-defense during a drunken brawl. The Supreme Court ruled against Connors, upholding his conviction and sentence. They found no error in how the lower court handled instructions to the jury regarding possible lesser charges. According to their interpretation of Arizona law at that time, if a killing is committed with malice aforethought it constitutes first degree murder regardless of any mitigating factors like intoxication or provocation; thus excluding consideration for lesser offenses such as manslaughter or second-degree murder.

In the dissenting opinion for Connors v. United States, Justice Brewer argued that the court had overstepped its bounds by interpreting a statute in a way that was not intended by Congress. He contended that the law in question, which made it illegal to bring "obscene" materials into the country, was meant to protect public morals and decency rather than suppress political speech or ideas. In this case, he believed that pamphlets advocating anarchism were being wrongly classified as obscene because they challenged established government authority. Brewer asserted that while such views might be unpopular or even dangerous, they did not meet the legal definition of obscenity and should therefore be protected under free speech rights guaranteed by First Amendment of Constitution. He warned against using laws designed for one purpose (in this case protecting public decency) to achieve another (suppressing political dissent), arguing it could lead to abuses of power and infringements on civil liberties.