The U.S. Supreme Court case John Doe #1, et al. v. Sam Reed, Washington Secretary of State, et al., 2009 revolved around the issue of whether signing a petition for a public referendum is considered protected speech under the First Amendment and thus should be kept anonymous or if it's part of legislative process which can be made public under state law. The plaintiffs were signatories to Referendum 71 in Washington state that sought to repeal certain rights and benefits granted to same-sex couples by domestic partnership laws; they wanted their identities kept secret fearing harassment from those opposing their views. However, the defendant argued that transparency was necessary for accountability in political processes like petitions for referenda as per Public Records Act (PRA). The court ruled in favor of defendant stating that disclosing signatures does not violate First Amendment rights because PRA serves an important governmental interest by promoting transparency and accountability.

In the dissenting opinion for John Doe #1, et al. v. Sam Reed, Washington Secretary of State, et al., 2009 case, Justice Thomas argued that signing a petition is an act of political speech protected by the First Amendment and should be kept private if signatories desire so. He contended that public disclosure could lead to intimidation or harassment of those who signed petitions on controversial issues and thus infringe upon their freedom of speech rights. The majority's decision to allow public access to these signatures failed in his view to recognize this potential chilling effect on free expression. Furthermore, he disagreed with the court's application of 'exacting scrutiny' standard instead arguing for strict scrutiny given that core political speech was at stake here.