In the 1984 case Hopfmann et al. v. Connolly et al., a group of taxpayers in Rhode Island challenged the constitutionality of a state law that provided financial aid to parents who sent their children to private schools, including religious ones. The plaintiffs argued that this violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits government from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion." However, the Supreme Court declined to hear their appeal from lower court decisions upholding the statute's constitutionality. This effectively affirmed those rulings and allowed Rhode Island's program to continue operating as it had been before.

In the dissenting opinion for Hopfmann et al. v. Connolly et al., Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Marshall and Blackmun, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Massachusetts law prohibiting corporations from making political contributions or expenditures was inconsistent with previous Supreme Court rulings on First Amendment rights of corporations. The dissenters believed that this ruling would allow states to suppress corporate speech in other areas as well, which they saw as a dangerous precedent. They also disagreed with the majority's assertion that preventing corruption justified limiting corporate free speech rights; instead, they suggested implementing disclosure requirements and contribution limits rather than outright bans on corporate political activity.