In the 1955 case Cammer v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of attorney Harry M. Cammer, who was held in contempt by a federal court for his behavior during a trial related to labor disputes. The lower court had found him guilty of contempt due to his "loud and boisterous" conduct while objecting to an evidentiary ruling made by the judge presiding over that trial. However, upon review, the Supreme Court reversed this decision on grounds that such objections were not necessarily disruptive or disrespectful towards judicial process but rather part of zealous advocacy expected from lawyers representing their clients' interests vigorously within legal bounds. The high court emphasized that attorneys should be given reasonable latitude when defending their clients’ rights and any punishment for alleged misconduct must be proportionate with its severity and impact on proceedings.

In the dissenting opinion for Cammer v. United States, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold Harry Cammer's contempt conviction was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that Mr. Cammer had not been given a fair opportunity to defend himself against the charges of contempt due to his absence from court when they were made and because he did not have legal representation at this time. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constitutes "misbehavior" in relation to an attorney’s conduct towards a congressional committee, arguing that Mr. Cammer’s behavior should be considered within context rather than as isolated incidents which may appear disrespectful or disruptive out of context.