In the case of Zwicker et al. v. Boll, District Attorney of Dane County et al., 1967, a group of University of Wisconsin students and faculty members challenged an anti-picketing statute in Wisconsin as unconstitutional under the First Amendment's guarantee to freedom of speech. The plaintiffs had been charged with violating this statute during protests against U.S involvement in Vietnam War at Dow Chemical Company’s campus recruitment event - a company known for manufacturing napalm used in the war. They sought an injunction to prevent prosecution under this law arguing that it was overly broad and vague thereby infringing on their rights to free speech and assembly. The Supreme Court upheld lower courts' decisions denying relief, stating that federal courts should abstain from interfering with pending state criminal proceedings except under extraordinary circumstances which did not exist here. It also noted that any constitutional issues could be raised during those state court proceedings.

In the dissenting opinion for Zwicker et al. v. Boll, District Attorney of Dane County et al., Justice Douglas argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Wisconsin statute prohibiting "disorderly conduct" was overly broad and vague, potentially infringing upon First Amendment rights. He contended that this law could be used to suppress free speech and assembly by labeling them as disorderly conduct. Furthermore, he expressed concern about the potential misuse of such laws by those in power against political dissidents or unpopular groups. The justice also criticized the court's failure to provide clear guidelines on what constitutes 'disorderly conduct', leaving it open for subjective interpretation which could lead to arbitrary enforcement and abuse of power.