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.
Eight months after the initial ruling, at the beginning of the next term in Abrams v. United States (1919), the Court applied the bad tendency test again to validate the conviction of a Russian immigrant who published leaflets calling for a general strike and promoting radical views. In contrast, Holmes dissented, arguing that the clear and present danger test should be used to acquit Abrams.