In the case of Hamilton et al. v. Regents of the University of California et al., 1934, students at the University of California challenged a mandatory military science course as part of their curriculum on grounds that it violated their religious and pacifistic beliefs. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the university regents, stating that such courses were within its rights to require for graduation and did not infringe upon any constitutional protections or liberties. The court held that while freedom to believe is absolute, acting on those beliefs can be regulated for societal interests; thus compulsory education does not violate First Amendment freedoms when it comes into conflict with individual convictions or preferences.

In the dissenting opinion for Hamilton et al. v. Regents of the University of California et al., Justice Cardozo disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a university regulation requiring military training as part of its curriculum, which was challenged by students who were pacifists on religious grounds. He argued that this requirement violated their constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically their right to freedom of thought and religion. He contended that compulsory education in war and militarism imposed an undue burden on these students' deeply held beliefs against violence and warfare, thus infringing upon their liberty interests protected by due process clause. Furthermore, he emphasized that such compulsion is not necessary for achieving any compelling state interest or educational objective; hence it fails to meet strict scrutiny standard required for limiting fundamental freedoms.