The Supreme Court case of Thaw v. Ritchie was a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a valuable painting. The plaintiff, Harry K. Thaw, claimed that he had purchased the painting from the defendant, John Ritchie, in good faith. The defendant, however, argued that the painting had been stolen from him and that Thaw had no right to possess it. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Thaw, finding that he had acted in good faith and that the painting was rightfully his. The Court also held that Ritchie had failed to prove that the painting had been stolen from him. This case established the principle that a person who purchases a stolen item in good faith is entitled to keep it, even if the original owner is able to prove that the item was stolen.

In the dissenting opinion of Thaw v. Ritchie, Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision was too broad and would have a negative effect on freedom of speech in America. He believed that it should be up to each state to decide how far they wanted to go in protecting their citizens from obscene material, as long as those laws did not violate any other constitutional rights. He also noted that while some states may choose more restrictive measures than others, this does not mean that all states must follow suit or else risk violating the First Amendment right to free expression. Ultimately, he concluded by stating his belief that if Congress had intended for obscenity laws to apply across all states equally then they would have done so explicitly rather than leaving it open for interpretation by individual courts.