In the case of Shuttlesworth et al. v. City of Birmingham, 1962, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Fred Shuttlesworth and others who had been convicted by Alabama courts for violating a city ordinance that prohibited public demonstrations without a permit from the city commission. The court held that this ordinance was unconstitutional because it gave too much discretion to local officials to determine whether or not to grant permits for peaceful protests based on their content or viewpoint, thereby infringing upon First Amendment rights. This ruling emphasized that any law which allows public officials to exercise their judgment in such matters can lead to discrimination against certain viewpoints and is therefore incompatible with free speech principles.

In the dissenting opinion for Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Justice Harlan argued that the ordinance in question was not unconstitutional on its face and should have been upheld. He contended that it did not grant unlimited discretion to city officials as majority claimed but rather provided clear guidelines for permit issuance based on public safety, convenience and normal use of sidewalks or streets. Furthermore, he believed that even if there were some ambiguity in interpretation, this could be resolved by Alabama courts without striking down the entire law. Harlan also disagreed with majority's reliance on prior cases where similar laws had been invalidated due to misuse by authorities; instead he insisted each case must be judged individually based on its own merits and circumstances.