In the Herndon v. Georgia case of 1934, Angelo Herndon, an African-American and a member of the Communist Party was convicted under a Georgia law for attempting to incite insurrection after he organized a peaceful protest against economic conditions during the Great Depression. The Supreme Court overturned his conviction in an 8-1 decision on grounds that it violated his First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly as well as Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection under law. This ruling marked one of the first times that these constitutional protections were extended by the court towards political dissenters who advocated radical change, setting important precedents for future cases involving civil liberties.

In the dissenting opinion for Herndon v. Georgia, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to overturn Herndon's conviction. He argued that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to support a finding of guilt under both charges - attempting to incite insurrection and circulating Communist literature. According to him, it was not an overreach of state power or violation of constitutional rights as claimed by the majority but rather a legitimate exercise in maintaining public order and safety against potential threats posed by radical political ideologies like Communism. Furthermore, he contended that it is within each state’s prerogative to determine what constitutes criminal behavior and enact laws accordingly; therefore, federal courts should refrain from interfering unless absolutely necessary which wasn't so in this case according to him.