In the United States v. Laub et al., 1966, the Supreme Court ruled that a passport could not be revoked or denied solely because of an individual's political beliefs or associations. The case involved several individuals who had traveled to Cuba in defiance of State Department travel restrictions and subsequently had their passports invalidated by the government upon return to the U.S.. They sued, arguing that this violated their First Amendment rights. The court agreed with them, holding that while Congress has broad power over foreign affairs and can impose reasonable regulations on international travel for national security reasons, it cannot use these powers as a means of suppressing free speech and association. Therefore, unless there is clear evidence showing someone poses a direct threat to national security or foreign policy objectives due to his/her political activities abroad (which was not demonstrated here), he/she cannot be deprived of his/her right to travel internationally.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Laub et al., Justice Douglas argued that the majority's decision was a violation of First Amendment rights, specifically freedom of association and speech. He contended that travel is an essential aspect of freedom, and restricting it based on political beliefs or affiliations infringes upon this liberty. The government should not have the power to limit citizens' movements due to their ideological leanings unless there is clear evidence that they pose a threat to national security. Furthermore, he criticized the use of passports as instruments for controlling individuals' actions abroad rather than simply verifying identity and citizenship status as originally intended. In his view, such measures are indicative of totalitarian regimes rather than democratic societies committed to upholding civil liberties.