In the 1963 case Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth challenged a city ordinance that required permits for public demonstrations after he was denied a permit and subsequently arrested for participating in a peaceful protest against segregation. The U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Shuttlesworth, stating that the ordinance as it was written gave too much discretion to the city commission who could deny permits based on their own judgment or bias rather than clear legal guidelines. This violated First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and assembly by potentially suppressing certain viewpoints or messages. Therefore, this decision affirmed citizens' constitutional right to peacefully protest without undue interference from local authorities.

In the dissenting opinion for Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Justice Harlan argued that the ordinance in question was not inherently unconstitutional as it did not grant absolute power to city officials to issue or deny parade permits based on their own discretion. He believed that this case should have been remanded back to state courts for further clarification regarding its interpretation and application rather than being struck down by the Supreme Court. According to him, if a law is open-ended and could be interpreted in multiple ways, one of which might be constitutional, then it's better left up to local authorities who are more familiar with specific circumstances surrounding each permit request. Furthermore, he contended that there were no concrete evidences showing discriminatory enforcement against African-Americans or civil rights activists under this ordinance.