In the 1957 case of Speiser v. Randall, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a California law requiring veterans to sign a loyalty oath in order to receive property tax exemptions was unconstitutional. The court held that this requirement violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments as it conditioned receipt of a tax benefit on freedom of speech and belief, thereby imposing an unconstitutional burden on those rights. The state could not require individuals to affirm their loyalty without providing them with procedural safeguards against erroneous deprivation of their benefits; such safeguards would include notice and opportunity for hearing before any penalties were imposed for disloyalty. This ruling reinforced constitutional protections against laws infringing upon free speech rights by making government benefits contingent upon them.

In the dissenting opinion for Speiser v. Randall, Justice Frankfurter argued that the California law requiring veterans to sign a loyalty oath to qualify for a property tax exemption did not violate their First Amendment rights. He contended that states have broad powers in granting tax exemptions and can set conditions on those benefits. The justice also asserted that signing an oath was not compelled speech but rather a requirement to receive state aid, which does not infringe upon free speech rights. Furthermore, he believed it was reasonable for California to ensure its beneficiaries were loyal citizens during times of national security concerns like the Cold War era when this case took place.