In the case of Houghton v. Shafer, Governor of Pennsylvania, et al., 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a state law requiring candidates for public office to take an oath denying any past affiliations with groups advocating violent overthrow of the government was unconstitutional. The appellant, William Houghton had been nominated by his party as a candidate for city council in Philadelphia but refused to sign such an oath and was subsequently denied access to ballot placement by election officials. He challenged this requirement on grounds that it violated his First Amendment rights and due process clause under Fourteenth Amendment protections against self-incrimination. In its decision, the court held that while states have legitimate interest in ensuring loyalty from their public servants they cannot infringe upon constitutional freedoms through overly broad measures like these loyalty oaths which could potentially punish innocent political association or belief without evidence of actual disloyalty or subversive action.

In the dissenting opinion for Houghton v. Shafer, it was argued that the majority's decision violated principles of federalism by allowing a federal court to interfere in state affairs. The dissenters believed that Pennsylvania had not been given adequate opportunity to address and rectify any constitutional violations within its own judicial system before federal intervention occurred. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of 'cruel and unusual punishment', arguing that life imprisonment without parole did not constitute such punishment under existing legal standards or societal norms at the time. Furthermore, they contended that this ruling could potentially open up floodgates for similar challenges against other states' sentencing laws, leading to an unnecessary increase in litigation and further erosion of states' rights.