In the 1942 case Martin v. City of Struthers, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mary Martin who was convicted for violating a city ordinance by distributing religious literature door-to-door without permission from homeowners. The court held that this prohibition violated her First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and press. The majority opinion, delivered by Justice Hugo Black, emphasized that door-to-door distribution of literature is an important form of communication which should be protected under the constitution unless it invades substantial privacy interests or involves fraudulent sales techniques. This ruling affirmed that cities cannot completely ban such activities but can regulate them to protect residents' peace and privacy.

In the dissenting opinion for Martin v. City of Struthers, Justice Frankfurter argued that the ordinance in question was a reasonable regulation to protect household privacy and prevent crime. He believed that it did not violate First Amendment rights because it regulated only the manner of communication, not its content or message. The majority's decision, he contended, failed to consider adequately local conditions and needs which justified such an ordinance. Furthermore, he suggested that if people wanted information distributed by door-to-door solicitors they could simply post a sign indicating their willingness to receive such material; thus no one would be denied access to information against their will.