In the case of Beck v. Washington, James R. Beck was convicted for contempt by a state court in Washington after he criticized a judge's conduct during a labor dispute trial involving his union. The Supreme Court reviewed whether this conviction violated his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and assembly or if it infringed on his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. In 1961, the Supreme Court upheld Beck's conviction with an 8-1 decision stating that there was no constitutional violation because states have the power to punish contemptuous behavior towards their courts as long as they provide fair procedures for determining guilt. They found that while criticism of judicial decisions is protected under free speech, making false statements about judges' impartiality can be punished without violating constitutional rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Beck v. Washington, Justice Hugo Black argued that the majority's decision to uphold Beck's conviction was a violation of his constitutional rights. He contended that there were serious issues with both the trial and appellate proceedings which should have led to a reversal of Beck's conviction. Specifically, he pointed out that some evidence used against Beck was obtained through an unlawful search and seizure, violating his Fourth Amendment rights. Additionally, he criticized the use of perjured testimony in securing Beck’s conviction as well as procedural errors made during jury selection process which denied him fair trial under Sixth Amendment. Furthermore, Justice Black took issue with how federal courts had handled this case on appeal by not providing adequate review or consideration for these alleged violations of constitutional rights.