In Wheaton v. California (1966), the U.S Supreme Court addressed a case involving an individual named Robert Wheaton who was convicted of burglary in California and sentenced to life imprisonment under the state's recidivist statute, which allowed for harsher sentences for repeat offenders. The primary issue at hand was whether or not this sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment, violating the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The court ruled that it did not violate his constitutional rights because states have broad discretion in determining punishments for crimes committed within their jurisdiction, including implementing stricter penalties for habitual criminals to deter future offenses. This decision upheld Wheaton’s conviction and life sentence.

In the dissenting opinion for Wheaton v. California, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring door-to-door solicitors to obtain prior consent from homeowners was an overreach of government power and infringed upon First Amendment rights. He contended that such laws could potentially be used as tools of censorship or discrimination against unpopular groups or ideas. Furthermore, he believed it was not within the purview of local governments to decide who may speak or what they may say in public forums based on subjective standards like 'annoyance' or 'disturbance.' Instead, he suggested that any regulation should focus on preventing actual harm rather than potential inconvenience. Lastly, Justice Harlan expressed concern about how this ruling might set a dangerous precedent for future cases involving freedom of speech and expression.