In the 1962 case Fields et al. v. South Carolina, a group of African American petitioners challenged their convictions for breach of peace following their peaceful protest against segregation at a South Carolina lunch counter. The protesters argued that they were exercising their First Amendment rights and that the state law under which they were convicted was unconstitutionally vague and broad in violation of due process guarantees. However, the Supreme Court declined to review these constitutional claims on procedural grounds because they had not been properly presented to the state courts first. Instead, it upheld the convictions based on its finding that there was sufficient evidence to support them under a narrower interpretation of state law - specifically, one focused solely on conduct causing or likely to cause an actual disturbance rather than mere presence at a segregated facility.

In the dissenting opinion for Fields et al. v. South Carolina, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to overturn a state law on constitutional grounds was premature and unnecessary. He believed that there were other legal avenues available to address the plaintiffs' concerns without resorting to such drastic measures. Specifically, he suggested that they could have challenged their convictions under state law or sought relief through habeas corpus proceedings in federal court if they felt their rights had been violated by an unfair trial process. By choosing instead to strike down a longstanding statute based solely on its potential for abuse, Harlan feared that the Court was overstepping its bounds and undermining states' authority over criminal justice matters within their own jurisdictions.