In Grayned v. City of Rockford, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Richard Grayned who had been convicted for violating a city ordinance that prohibited picketing or demonstrations near schools. The court held that the anti-picketing law was not unconstitutionally vague and did not violate First Amendment rights to free speech as it only applied during school hours when its impact would be most disruptive. However, they found the noise ordinance unconstitutional because it was overly broad and could potentially criminalize protected speech such as casual conversations on public sidewalks near schools. This case established an important precedent regarding limitations on protests near sensitive areas like schools while also protecting freedom of expression from overly restrictive laws.

In the dissenting opinion for Grayned v. City of Rockford, Justice Black disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold an anti-picketing ordinance as constitutional. He argued that this law was too broad and could potentially infringe upon First Amendment rights by prohibiting peaceful protests or demonstrations near schools. According to him, while it is important to maintain order in educational institutions, it should not be done at the expense of free speech and assembly rights. Furthermore, he contended that there were already existing laws against disturbing peace which could address any potential disruptions caused by picketing without violating constitutional rights.