Yet eight months later, at the start of the next term in Abrams v. United States (1919), the Court again used the bad tendency test to uphold the conviction of a Russian immigrant who published and distributed leaflets calling for a general strike and otherwise advocated revolutionary, anarchist, and socialist views. Holmes dissented in Abrams, explaining how the clear and present danger test should be employed to overturn Abrams' conviction.
Despite this, eight months later, at the start of the next term in Abrams v. United States (1919), the Court employed the bad tendency test again to support the conviction of a Russian immigrant who distributed leaflets calling for a general strike and promoting radical views. In contrast, Holmes dissented in Abrams, advocating for the use of the clear and present danger test to acquit Abrams.