In the case of Zuckerman et al. v. Greason, 1966, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a New York law that allowed for an automatic stay of eviction proceedings if tenants deposited all rent due with the court clerk violated constitutional rights to equal protection and due process. The appellants were landlords who argued that this provision unfairly favored tenants over landlords by allowing them to delay evictions without any showing of merit on their part or harm on landlord's part. However, the Supreme Court dismissed these arguments and upheld the constitutionality of this provision in a per curiam decision (a ruling issued in name of court rather than specific judges). The court found no violation because it held that states have broad power to regulate property relations among its citizens within their jurisdiction and such regulation does not violate Fourteenth Amendment as long as there is reasonable basis for classification.

In the dissenting opinion for Zuckerman et al. v. Greason, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a New York law requiring loyalty oaths from teachers and other public employees violated First Amendment rights of free speech and association. The dissenters believed that such laws were unconstitutional as they infringed upon individual liberties by compelling individuals to affirm their allegiance to the government in order to secure employment or retain their jobs. They contended that these laws could potentially be used as tools of political repression, stifling diversity of thought and expression within society at large. Furthermore, they expressed concern over the vagueness of terms like "subversive" in these statutes which left them open for broad interpretation and potential misuse against innocent citizens who may hold unpopular but non-threatening beliefs or affiliations.