In De Jonge v. Oregon (1937), the debate centered around whether Dirk De Jonge's conviction under Oregon's criminal syndicalism law, for participating in a Communist Party meeting, violated his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and assembly.

In this case, after a jury found a defendant not guilty of making false statements but still facing blackmail and bribery charges, the Sixth Circuit rejected a district court ruling that prevented the Government from retrying the defendant. As a reasonable jury may have accused the defendant guilty of bribery or extortion even though they had made false claims, the Court determined that judicial delay did not apply because making false statements is not an essential element of either crime.