In the case of Williams et al. v. United States, 1920, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a federal law that made it illegal to transport women across state lines for "immoral purposes" also applied to consensual relationships and non-commercial private behavior. The defendants were two men who had taken their girlfriends from Minnesota to Chicago on vacation and were subsequently arrested under this law (the Mann Act). The court ruled in favor of the government, stating that Congress intended for the act to cover a broad range of immoral activities not limited solely to prostitution or other commercialized vice. This decision expanded federal jurisdiction over personal behaviors traditionally governed by state laws.

In the dissenting opinion for Williams et al. v. United States, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., along with Justices Louis Brandeis and Willis Van Devanter, disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Espionage Act of 1917. They argued that it was not intended to criminalize speech that merely criticized or opposed U.S government policy during wartime but rather aimed at preventing actual interference with military operations or recruitment efforts. The dissenting justices believed that there was a significant difference between expressing disapproval of war and actively obstructing it; they contended that only the latter should be punishable under law as per First Amendment rights to free speech. They also expressed concern about potential misuse of such broad interpretations in suppressing political dissidence and curtailing civil liberties.