In the 1920 case of Pierce et al. v. United States, the Supreme Court upheld convictions under the Espionage Act of 1917 for individuals who distributed leaflets encouraging resistance to World War I draft laws. The defendants argued that their First Amendment rights were violated by these convictions, but this argument was rejected by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., writing for a unanimous court. He stated that while in many places and in ordinary times, defendants would have been within their constitutional rights to voice such sentiments; however, during wartime when they published them near a military station with an intent to obstruct recruiting services it posed "a clear and present danger" which justified restriction on free speech as per Schenck v. United States (1919). This ruling further solidified limitations on freedom of speech during times of war or national security concerns.

In the dissenting opinion for Pierce et al. v. United States, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., joined by Justice Louis Brandeis, argued that the defendants' convictions should be overturned due to lack of evidence proving they had intent to obstruct recruitment and enlistment services during World War I as charged under the Espionage Act of 1917. Holmes contended that mere disapproval or criticism of government actions did not equate to criminal activity unless there was a clear intention and attempt to cause harm or disruption. He also emphasized his belief in upholding freedom of speech rights even amidst wartime circumstances, expressing concern over potential governmental abuse if such liberties were too easily curtailed based on subjective interpretations of 'intent'. The justices further questioned whether some statements made by defendants could reasonably lead directly to obstruction of military recruitment as required for conviction under the law.