The Hynes v. Mayor and Council of Borough of Oradell case in 1975 revolved around a local ordinance that required individuals to notify the police before going door-to-door for any cause, including political campaigns. The Supreme Court ruled this ordinance unconstitutional on grounds that it was overly broad and vague, violating the First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and assembly. The court held that such an ordinance could potentially deter free expression by creating uncertainty about what activities were covered under its provisions. Additionally, it gave too much discretion to law enforcement officials who could arbitrarily decide whether or not someone's activity warranted notification. Therefore, the requirement for prior notice was deemed unnecessary as there were other ways available to protect residents from fraudulent solicitation without infringing upon constitutional rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Hynes v. Mayor and Council of Borough of Oradell, Justice William O. Douglas argued that the ordinance in question was not vague but rather a necessary tool to protect citizens' privacy from unwanted solicitation. He contended that door-to-door canvassing can be intrusive and disturbing to private life, hence it is within a municipality's rights to regulate such activities through permit requirements. The majority's view that the law was too ambiguous would make it difficult for any local government to enact laws regulating solicitation without being overly specific or restrictive, which could potentially infrive on First Amendment rights more than this ordinance did. Furthermore, he disagreed with their interpretation of "canvasser," arguing that its meaning is clear enough in common language use and legal precedent.