In Freedman v. Maryland (1964), the US Supreme Court ruled that a state could not require a film distributor to submit their film for approval before public exhibition without providing certain procedural safeguards. The case arose when the appellant, Herman Freedman, was convicted under Maryland law for showing an unapproved movie. He argued this violated his First Amendment rights of free speech and expression. The court agreed with him in a 7-2 decision, stating that any system of prior restraint comes bearing heavy presumption against its constitutional validity due to potential censorship risks. The court outlined three necessary safeguards: any restraint imposed in advance of final judicial determination must be limited to preservation status; prompt judicial review must be available; and the burden of proof should rest on the censoring body to prove content is unprotected by First Amendment rather than on those seeking release from censorship's burden. This ruling significantly impacted future cases involving freedom of speech and expression as it established important guidelines regarding government regulation over such matters.

In the dissenting opinion for Freedman v. Maryland, the justice argued that the majority's decision to require a prompt judicial review of any administrative censorship decisions was an overreach of federal authority into state matters. The justice contended that states should have more leeway in determining how they handle issues related to obscenity and free speech within their own jurisdictions. They also expressed concern about potential negative impacts on law enforcement efforts against obscenity, arguing that requiring swift judicial reviews could overwhelm courts and slow down proceedings unnecessarily. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that prior restraint is always unconstitutional in cases involving alleged obscenity, suggesting instead there may be circumstances where such measures are justified.