In the 1919 case of Duhne v. State of New Jersey, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court that denied John Duhne's petition for habeas corpus. The petitioner was convicted under an Espionage Act statute in New Jersey for distributing pamphlets encouraging resistance to World War I draft laws and sentenced to five years imprisonment. He appealed his conviction on grounds that it violated his First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly, as well as due process under Fourteenth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed lower court’s decision without opinion, implying agreement with its reasoning: namely, that during times of war or public danger, certain expressions intended or tending to obstruct military recruitment may be punished without infringing constitutional protections of freedom of speech and press; also noting such actions were not protected forms of protest but rather acts inciting lawless action.

In the dissenting opinion for Duhne v. State of New Jersey, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. argued that the state's requirement for bar admission applicants to be citizens did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. He reasoned that citizenship was a reasonable prerequisite given an attorney's role in shaping and enforcing laws, which are integral components of a nation's sovereignty. Holmes contended that it was within a state’s rights to decide who could practice law within its jurisdiction as long as there wasn't any discrimination against certain nationalities or races among those who were already citizens. Furthermore, he believed this case didn’t involve deprivation of property without due process because practicing law is considered more of a privilege granted by states rather than an inherent right or property interest protected under constitutional provisions.