In the 1981 case National Association for the Advancement of Colored People et al. v. Claiborne Hardware Co. et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of NAACP, stating that nonviolent boycotts are a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment. The case arose from a boycott led by local NAACP chapter against white-owned businesses in Port Gibson, Mississippi to protest racial inequality and segregation during 1966-1972 period. When these businesses sued for lost earnings, lower courts held that NAACP was liable for their financial losses resulting from this boycott activity due to its economic coercion nature which violated state's law prohibiting secondary boycotts (boycotts not directly involved with labor disputes). However, on appeal at Supreme Court level, it was decided that while violence related to such protests could be punishable under law; peaceful demonstrations and advocacy including economic pressure through boycotting were within constitutional rights as they represented political expression and association aimed at bringing about social change.

In the dissenting opinion for NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., Justice White argued that economic boycotts should not be protected under the First Amendment as a form of political speech or assembly. He contended that such actions are essentially coercive and violent in nature, designed to inflict economic harm on others to force them into compliance with certain demands. Therefore, he believed they should be treated as illegal conduct rather than constitutionally protected activity. Furthermore, he expressed concern about the potential implications of this ruling for labor disputes and other situations where similar tactics might be used against private parties who do not have any direct control over government policies or actions being protested.