In the case of Wainwright v. City of New Orleans, 1967, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a city ordinance that prohibited "obscene" or "indecent" conduct violated constitutional rights. The petitioner, Wainwright, had been convicted under this ordinance for his participation in an allegedly obscene play and argued that the law was overly broad and vague in its definition of obscenity. He also contended it infringed upon his First Amendment right to freedom of speech and expression. The Supreme Court disagreed with Wainwright's arguments. It held that while certain forms of expression are protected by the Constitution, not all expressions fall within these protections - particularly those deemed obscene or indecent by community standards. The court found no evidence suggesting that local authorities were using their powers arbitrarily or unfairly against specific types of content or viewpoints. Therefore, it upheld both Wainwright’s conviction and the constitutionality of New Orleans' obscenity laws as they did not violate any fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Wainwright v. City of New Orleans argued that the majority's decision to reverse and remand the case was inappropriate because it failed to consider important aspects of state law. The dissent contended that there were no federal constitutional issues involved, as this was a matter concerning local zoning laws and regulations - an area traditionally left for states to regulate. They believed that by intervening in such matters, the Supreme Court overstepped its boundaries and intruded upon state sovereignty. Furthermore, they suggested that if every zoning dispute could be brought before federal courts under claims of due process violations, it would open floodgates for similar cases which should rightly be resolved at a local or state level.