Dalzell was a financial analyst for the National Broadcasting Company in New York from 1965 to 1966, and was a visiting lecturer in law at Wharton from 1969 to 1970.
In 1971 he served as treasurer for the unsuccessful mayoral campaign of longtime friend W. Thatcher Longstreth, and later was involved in the controversy concerning Philadelphia's Home Rule Charter, which mayor Frank Rizzo sought (unsuccessfully) to amend to allow him to seek an additional term in office.
501, 544 (1994) (arguing for the application of judicial review over the constitutional amendment process);[4] Stewart Dalzell, One Cheer for the Guidelines, 40 Vill.
The panel declared the Communications Decency Act unconstitutional and in his separate opinion Judge Dalzell described the Internet as “[t]he most participatory marketplace of mass speech that this country—and indeed the world—has yet seen.” Legal commentators quickly celebrated his opinion as “groundbreaking” [9] and “a welcome break with the American judicial tradition of underestimating the social significance of new media.”.
[10] Judge Dalzell's decision finding the anti-indecency provisions of the Communications Decency Act violated the First Amendment was ultimately upheld by nine justices of the United States Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union.
[11] Lambert had been convicted of the Murder of Laurie Show, but Judge Dalzell's opinion detailed the compelling evidence unearthed at the hearing that showed the 1992 state trial in which she was convicted had been corrupted by perjury, witness tampering, fabrication of evidence, and the withholding of information crucial for the defense.
Judge Dalzell was moved to declare Ms. Lambert “actually innocent” and thoroughly chastised those responsible for the “miscarriage of justice”—concluding that “in making a pact with this devil, Lancaster County made a Faustian Bargain.
Its legal edifice now in ashes, we can only hope for a Witness-like barn-raising of the temple of justice.” Judge Dalzell’s decision was ultimately reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on procedural grounds—failure to exhaust state remedies.