The U.S. Supreme Court case Ward et al. v. Rock Against Racism (1988) revolved around the issue of whether New York City's guidelines for controlling sound volume at bandshell concerts in Central Park violated the First Amendment rights of concert organizers, specifically those of Rock Against Racism (RAR). The city had received numerous noise complaints and decided to use a city-provided sound system and technician for all events, which RAR argued was an infringement on their freedom of expression. The court ruled 6-3 in favor of the city, stating that while these regulations did affect free speech, they were justified by significant government interests - namely managing noise levels to maintain peace within residential areas surrounding Central Park and ensuring sound quality for listeners within park grounds. This ruling established that content-neutral time, place or manner restrictions are constitutionally permissible if they serve substantial governmental interests and leave open ample alternative channels for communication.

In the dissenting opinion for Ward et al. v. Rock Against Racism, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the majority's decision to uphold New York City's sound amplification guideline as a reasonable regulation of speech was incorrect and violated First Amendment rights. He contended that the city had failed to prove its regulations were narrowly tailored to serve significant government interests or left open ample alternative channels for communication, which are necessary conditions under time, place and manner restrictions on free speech doctrine established by previous court rulings. Furthermore, he criticized the majority’s application of intermediate scrutiny instead of strict scrutiny in evaluating this case involving content-neutral restriction on expressive activity in public forum. He believed it gave too much deference to legislative judgments at expense of individual liberties protected by Constitution.