In the case of Frisby v. Schultz, 1987, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Wisconsin town's ordinance that prohibited picketing "before or about" any individual’s residence. The dispute began when anti-abortion activists started protesting outside a doctor's home who performed abortions at a local clinic. In response to these protests, the Town Board of Brookfield passed an ordinance banning all focused residential picketing but allowed general marching through residential neighborhoods. The protesters filed suit claiming this law violated their First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly. However, the court upheld the constitutionality of this ban by a 6-3 vote stating that it was content-neutral and served significant government interests including protecting residential privacy and preventing unwanted intrusions into homes. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for majority opinion emphasizing on preserving tranquility in private residences as well as maintaining streets' primary purpose i.e., facilitating transportation rather than public discourse.

In the dissenting opinion for Frisby v. Schultz, Justice Brennan argued that the majority's decision to uphold a ban on picketing in residential neighborhoods was an overreach and violated First Amendment rights. He contended that public streets have historically been considered public forums where free speech should be protected, regardless of their location within residential areas. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's characterization of such picketing as inherently intrusive; instead, he believed this determination should depend on specific circumstances like time or manner rather than blanket bans based solely on location. Lastly, Justice Brennan expressed concern about potential chilling effects this ruling could have on other forms of peaceful protest and assembly in residential areas.