Yes.
For great many Supreme Court rulings there was an opposite ruling in the past. It used to be that the black did not have rights, the gays could not marry, the women could not vote, and speaking up against war was treason.
Times change.
For great many Supreme Court rulings there was an opposite ruling in the past. It used to be that the black did not have rights, the gays could not marry, the women could not vote, and speaking up against war was treason.
Times change.
Allowing people to vote and other liberties don't present the obvious yin and yang of freedoms vs public health and etc.
Most (all?) of these arcane laws were presented in their time as justified curtailing of individual freedoms for the common good. You could not oppose war without going to jail - one could, and did, argue that such any such opposition was detrimental to resolve and ultimately the victory itself, leading to untold casualties. And yet here we are - oppose all you want!
Every oppressive law is introduced with justification of needing to protect the public, but finding the balance is not as simple as saying "yep, this might help in our fight against blah". The balance needs to be found in accordance with the Bill of Rights, in particular the 4th amendment.