In the 1964 case Dombrowski et al. v. Pfister, Chairman, Joint Legislative Committee on Unamerican Activities of the Louisiana Legislature, et al., James Dombrowski and other members of a civil rights organization sued Jack P.F. Gremillion (Louisiana Attorney General) and others for using state anti-subversion laws to harass them and inhibit their work in violation of their First Amendment rights. The plaintiffs claimed that they were being subjected to unwarranted searches and seizures as well as threats of prosecution under these laws which were intended to suppress their advocacy for racial equality in Louisiana. The U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dombrowski stating that federal courts had the authority to intervene if state officials attempted to infringe upon constitutional protections such as freedom of speech through bad faith enforcement or harassment tactics disguised as law enforcement activities.

In the dissenting opinion for Dombrowski et al. v. Pfister, Justice Harlan argued that federal courts should abstain from intervening in state proceedings unless there is proven bad faith harassment or prosecution. He believed that the majority's decision to allow federal intervention based on allegations of chilling free speech was a departure from established principles of equity, comity and federalism. Furthermore, he contended that this new standard would open floodgates for similar cases where individuals could allege First Amendment violations to halt state prosecutions or investigations without concrete evidence of harassment or bad faith prosecution by state officials.