In the 1960 case Konigsberg v. State Bar of California, Raphael Konigsberg was denied admission to the California bar on two grounds: his refusal to answer whether he had ever been a member of the Communist Party and perceived lack of good moral character. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the State Bar by a vote of five to four, stating that it was within its rights to deny him entry based on these reasons. However, this decision sparked controversy as critics argued that it violated First Amendment rights relating to freedom of speech and association. Furthermore, they claimed that there were no clear standards for determining "good moral character," making this requirement arbitrary and potentially discriminatory.

In the dissenting opinion for Konigsberg v. State Bar of California, Justice Hugo Black argued that the majority's decision violated Konigsberg's First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association. He contended that there was no evidence suggesting that Konigsberg had any intention or inclination to overthrow the government by force or violence, which would be grounds for denying his admission to practice law in California. Furthermore, he criticized the majority’s reliance on a “clear and present danger” test as an inappropriate standard in this case because it allowed too much room for subjective interpretation and could potentially infrive upon individual liberties without sufficient justification. In essence, Justice Black believed that unless there is clear proof of intent to engage in illegal activities or harm national security, one’s political beliefs should not affect their professional opportunities.