In the case of O'Connor v. Ohio in 1966, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a state could not constitutionally require an individual to waive their right to appeal as a condition for granting probation. The appellant, O’Connor, was convicted of forgery and sentenced to imprisonment but offered probation on the condition that he waived his right to appeal his conviction. He accepted this offer and later sought habeas corpus relief arguing that conditioning probation on waiver of appellate rights violated due process clause under Fourteenth Amendment. The court agreed with him stating such conditions were unconstitutional because they coerced defendants into surrendering their constitutional rights.

In the dissenting opinion for O'Connor v. Ohio, 1966, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting picketing in front of residences without consent violated First Amendment rights. The dissenters contended that peaceful picketing is a form of expression protected by the Constitution and should not be restricted simply because it occurs in a residential area. They believed this prohibition could potentially lead to further restrictions on free speech and assembly rights in other contexts or locations deemed sensitive or private by authorities. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view that privacy interests outweighed First Amendment protections in this case, arguing instead for an approach which balanced these competing constitutional values rather than prioritizing one over another.