In the 1950 case of Kunz v. New York, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a street preacher named Carl Jacob Kunz who had been convicted for violating a city ordinance that required permits to hold public religious meetings. The court held that this was an infringement on his First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of religion. The City argued it needed to regulate such activities in order to maintain public order but the court disagreed, stating there were other ways for them to do so without infringing upon constitutional rights. This ruling emphasized that government cannot use its regulatory powers as means of censorship or control over what is said at public gatherings.

In the dissenting opinion for Kunz v. New York, Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision to strike down a city ordinance requiring permits for public religious meetings was incorrect. He believed that this law did not infringe upon First Amendment rights because it only regulated the time, place and manner of speech rather than its content. Furthermore, he contended that such regulations were necessary in order to prevent disorder and maintain public peace in densely populated urban areas like New York City. He also pointed out that similar laws had been upheld by courts in other jurisdictions without controversy or constitutional challenge.