In Ruthenberg et al. v. United States, the Supreme Court upheld the convictions of Charles Ruthenberg and other members of the Socialist Party for violating the Espionage Act of 1917 by distributing anti-war literature during World War I. The defendants argued that their First Amendment rights to free speech were violated as they were merely expressing their political views against U.S involvement in war. However, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., writing for a unanimous court, held that when words are used with intent to obstruct recruiting or enlistment service during wartime, it is not protected under freedom of speech clause in First Amendment because such actions pose a "clear and present danger" to national security interests.

In the dissenting opinion for Ruthenberg et al. v. United States, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., joined by Justice Louis Brandeis, argued that the defendants' conviction under the Espionage Act of 1917 should be overturned because their actions did not present a "clear and present danger" to U.S national security or its war efforts during World War I. The justices contended that merely distributing pamphlets opposing American involvement in WWI was an exercise of free speech protected by the First Amendment unless it incited immediate violence or harm against the government's interests. They believed that suppressing such political discourse would undermine democratic principles and cautioned against criminalizing dissenting views simply because they were unpopular or controversial at a particular time in history.