The U.S. Supreme Court case Interstate Circuit, Inc., et al. v. City of Dallas in 1967 revolved around the constitutionality of a city ordinance that established a local censorship board for movies. The City of Dallas had created an ordinance allowing for the classification and rating of films shown within its jurisdiction to protect minors from exposure to potentially harmful content. However, several movie distributors including Interstate Circuit, Inc challenged this law on grounds that it was vague and violated their First Amendment rights by imposing prior restraint on speech (in this case film). In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled against the City of Dallas stating that while cities have some power to regulate obscenity or protect children from harmful materials, they must do so with clear standards to avoid arbitrary enforcement or infringement upon free speech rights under First Amendment protections.

In the dissenting opinion for Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. City of Dallas, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established First Amendment principles and could lead to censorship in other areas beyond film regulation. He contended that the Court had failed to establish clear standards for determining what constitutes 'harmful' content for minors and expressed concern about potential overreach by local authorities in regulating films based on their subjective interpretations of this term. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on social science research as evidence of harm caused by certain types of content, arguing that such studies were inconclusive at best and potentially biased at worst. Finally, he questioned whether it was appropriate or constitutional for courts to be involved in making determinations about artistic value or moral impact.