In the 1970 case of Schlanger v. Seamans, Secretary of the Air Force et al., plaintiff Schlanger filed a suit against Robert C. Seamans Jr., then-Secretary of the Air Force, and other defendants for alleged violations of his constitutional rights under the First Amendment. The lawsuit was brought about due to an incident where Schlanger's reenlistment in the United States Air Force Reserve was denied because he had previously distributed anti-war literature on a military base without permission from commanding officers. He argued that this denial violated his right to free speech. However, upon review by Supreme Court justices, it was determined that there were no constitutional rights infringed upon as per their interpretation of applicable laws and regulations governing conduct within military installations. They concluded that these rules were not unconstitutional restrictions on freedom of speech but necessary measures for maintaining order and discipline among service members. The court ruled in favor of defendant Seamans and dismissed Schlanger’s claims stating they lacked merit since military bases are not public forums where unrestricted expression is allowed or protected under First Amendment rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Schlanger v. Seamans, it was argued that the majority's decision to dismiss the case on grounds of political question doctrine was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that this case did not involve a nonjusticiable political question but rather an issue of constitutional rights which courts are fully equipped to handle. They contended that when a citizen is denied reenlistment in military service based on his exercise of First Amendment rights, it becomes a matter for judicial review and remedy under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents (1971). Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view about separation-of-powers concerns as there were no direct orders from Congress or President prohibiting judicial intervention in such cases at that time. Therefore, according to them, dismissing this case would mean denying justice and ignoring potential violations of constitutional rights without any valid reason.