In the 1946 case of Gayes v. New York, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with issues related to freedom of speech and assembly. The petitioner, Irving Gayes, was convicted for disorderly conduct after he held a public meeting without obtaining a permit from local authorities as required by law in Rochester, New York. He argued that this requirement violated his First Amendment rights to free speech and peaceful assembly. However, the Supreme Court upheld his conviction stating that requiring permits for public meetings is not unconstitutional per se but serves as a way for municipalities to coordinate multiple uses of public facilities while ensuring safety and orderliness. Therefore it does not infrally upon individuals' constitutional rights unless applied in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Gayes v. New York argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction for disorderly conduct was an infringement on free speech rights protected by the First Amendment. The dissent contended that Mr. Gayes' actions, which involved distributing leaflets criticizing President Truman and advocating for socialism, were political expression rather than incitement or disturbance of peace as charged by the state of New York. They believed this ruling set a dangerous precedent where any unpopular or controversial speech could be suppressed under vague definitions of "disorderly conduct." Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies in applying such laws; while some individuals were arrested and convicted for their political expressions, others engaged in similar activities without facing legal consequences depending on how aligned their views were with those in power at any given time. This selective enforcement further underscored potential abuses stemming from broad interpretations of what constitutes disorderly behavior.