Schaumburg v. United States was a Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether the federal government could regulate the activities of a municipality. The case arose when the village of Schaumburg, Illinois, passed an ordinance that prohibited door-to-door solicitation of goods and services. The ordinance was challenged by the United States, which argued that the ordinance was in violation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the ordinance was constitutional, finding that the village of Schaumburg had a legitimate interest in protecting its citizens from fraud and undue annoyance. The Court noted that the ordinance was narrowly tailored to serve the village's interests, and that it did not unduly burden the rights of those engaging in door-to-door solicitation. The Court also noted that the ordinance was not an attempt to regulate the content of speech, but rather to regulate the time, place, and manner of speech. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the village of Schaumburg had the authority to regulate the activities of door-to-door solicitors, and that the ordinance was constitutional. The Court's decision established that municipalities have the power to regulate the activities of those engaging in door-to-door solicitation, so long as the regulations are narrowly tailored to serve a legitimate governmental interest.

Justice Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion in the case of Schaumberg v. United States, arguing that Congress had exceeded its authority under the Fourteenth Amendment by enacting legislation to prevent racial discrimination against individuals seeking housing. He argued that while Congress has broad powers to protect civil rights, it cannot use those powers to regulate private conduct and property rights without violating the Constitution's protections for individual liberty. Justice Marshall further noted that even if such regulation were permissible, this particular law was too vague and overbroad as it did not provide sufficient guidance on what constituted illegal behavior or how violations should be punished. He concluded by stating that since there was no clear constitutional basis for this law, it should be struck down as unconstitutional.