In the 1920 case of Gilbert v. State of Minnesota, Benjamin B. Gilbert was convicted for violating a state law that prohibited interference with the military's enlistment efforts during World War I. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction, rejecting Gilbert's argument that the law violated his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and assembly. The court ruled that states have an inherent power to protect their citizens' welfare and security, which includes enacting laws aimed at ensuring loyalty and preventing sedition in times of war or national crisis. Therefore, it held that Minnesota’s statute did not infrally upon any federally protected right under the Constitution because its purpose was within state police power as it sought to prevent interference with recruitment during wartime.

In the dissenting opinion for Gilbert v. State of Minnesota, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. argued that the state law prohibiting interference with military recruitment did not infringe on First Amendment rights to free speech. He contended that states have a right to protect their interests and maintain peace within their borders, especially during times of war when national security is at stake. Furthermore, he asserted that freedom of speech does not grant individuals unlimited license to express views detrimental to public safety or welfare; it must be balanced against other societal needs and considerations such as maintaining order and protecting national security. Therefore, in his view, laws restricting certain types of expression under specific circumstances are constitutionally permissible if they serve a compelling state interest.