In the case of City of Houston, Texas v. Hill in 1986, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a city ordinance making it illegal to interrupt a police officer during their duties was unconstitutionally broad and violated First Amendment rights. The case arose when Raymond Wayne Hill, an activist for gay rights in Houston, shouted at police officers who were handling his friend roughly during an arrest. He was subsequently charged under this ordinance but challenged its constitutionality. The court held that the First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers unless it is shown likely to produce "a clear and present danger" to a substantial state interest.

In the dissenting opinion for CITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS v. HILL, 1986, Justice White argued that the majority's decision to strike down a Houston ordinance criminalizing verbal interruptions of police officers in their line of duty was misguided. He contended that such laws were necessary to prevent interference with law enforcement and maintain public order. The justice believed that the First Amendment did not protect speech intended to disrupt police activity or provoke confrontations with officers. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential negative impacts on policing due to this ruling; fearing it could lead to an increase in physical altercations if verbal disruptions are allowed without legal consequences.