In the case of Ward v. Illinois (1976), the United States Supreme Court upheld a conviction for obscenity, rejecting arguments that state standards should not be applied in determining what constitutes obscene material under federal law. The defendant, an adult bookstore owner named Marvin Miller, was convicted under Illinois state law for selling obscene materials. He appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court arguing that only national standards could determine whether something is considered legally obscene and thus unprotected by First Amendment rights to free speech. However, the court disagreed with this argument and held that states have discretion to establish their own definitions of obscenity within certain limits set by previous decisions such as Miller v California (1973). Therefore, it affirmed Ward's conviction on grounds that he had violated Illinois' obscenity laws.

In the dissenting opinion for Ward v. Illinois, Justice Brennan argued that the majority's decision to uphold an obscenity conviction was inconsistent with previous Supreme Court rulings on First Amendment freedoms. He contended that the state law in question was too vague and overbroad, potentially leading to arbitrary enforcement and chilling effects on free speech. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on community standards as a measure of obscenity, arguing this approach could lead to suppression of material deemed acceptable by national standards but offensive in more conservative locales. Finally, Brennan expressed concern about potential government censorship resulting from such decisions.