In the De Jonge v. Oregon case of 1936, Dirk De Jonge was convicted under an Oregon statute for participating in a Communist Party meeting to discuss common grievances and potential remedies. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned his conviction, arguing that it violated his right to freedom of speech and assembly as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. This ruling established that states could not prohibit peaceful assemblies on account of their political beliefs or affiliations, even if those views were considered radical or dangerous at the time. Thus, this landmark decision significantly expanded protections for political expression and association in America.

In the dissenting opinion for De Jonge v. Oregon, Justice Butler argued that the state of Oregon had a right to protect itself against potential subversive activities and threats to its government. He contended that De Jonge's conduct fell under such a threat as he was involved in an organization (Communist Party) known for advocating violent overthrow of the government. Therefore, his arrest and conviction were justified measures taken by the state to safeguard its existence and welfare from possible insurrection or public disorder. Justice Butler emphasized on states' rights over individual liberties in this context, asserting that freedom of speech could be restricted if it posed danger to societal order or security.