In the Walker v. City of Birmingham case in 1966, a group of civil rights activists led by Martin Luther King Jr., Ralph Abernathy, and Fred Shuttlesworth were convicted for contempt after violating an Alabama injunction that prohibited them from leading protests against segregation without obtaining a permit. The defendants argued that the injunction was unconstitutional because it violated their First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly. However, the Supreme Court upheld their convictions with a 5-4 majority ruling stating they should have challenged the constitutionality of the injunction in court first before disobeying it. This decision emphasized respect for judicial process over immediate constitutional claims - known as "collateral bar rule". It held that even if an order is unconstitutional, individuals must obey until it's declared so by courts; otherwise there would be chaos and disorder undermining peaceable resolution through law.

In the dissenting opinion for Walker et al. v. City of Birmingham, Justice Potter Stewart, joined by Justices William O. Douglas and William J. Brennan Jr., argued that the petitioners were denied their constitutional rights to free speech and assembly due to an unjust injunction issued by a state court without proper notice or hearing. The dissenting justices believed that this case was not about disobedience of a court order but rather about fundamental First Amendment rights being violated through prior restraint on peaceful protest activities in public places - which they viewed as unconstitutional censorship before communication occurred. They also contended that the majority's decision ignored previous rulings where it had been established that individuals could challenge laws' constitutionality even if they disobeyed them first; thus, these justices felt there should have been an opportunity for judicial review before any punishment was imposed on those who defied such orders based on their belief in its unconstitutionality.