In the Hauge v. Chicago case of 1936, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of a group of Jehovah's Witnesses who were challenging an ordinance by Jersey City that prohibited door-to-door solicitation without a permit. The court found that this ordinance violated their First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of religion. The city argued that it was necessary for public safety and preventing fraud, but the court rejected these arguments stating they were not sufficient reasons to infringe upon constitutional rights. This decision affirmed the importance of protecting civil liberties even when they may be inconvenient or unpopular with certain segments of society.

In the dissenting opinion for Hauge v. Chicago, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of both the Commerce Clause and federal law. He contended that Congress had not intended to regulate intrastate sales when it passed legislation regulating interstate commerce in intoxicating liquors, nor did it intend to supersede state laws on such matters. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's assertion that an individual who purchases liquor in one state for personal use and then transports it into another has engaged in interstate commerce subject to federal regulation. Instead, he believed this constituted private action outside of commercial activity as traditionally understood under constitutional law. Thus, according to Justice Stone’s interpretation, Mr.Hauge should have been protected by his home state’s laws rather than being subjected to prosecution under Illinois’ prohibition statutes.