In the case of Chandler v. Judicial Council of the Tenth Circuit (1969), U.S. District Judge Stephen S. Chandler Jr., challenged a resolution by the Judicial Council that effectively barred him from hearing any cases in his district court, alleging it was an infringement on judicial independence and separation of powers principles. The Supreme Court held that such actions were within Congress's constitutional authority to regulate federal courts and did not violate separation-of-powers principles as they are part of internal governance mechanisms for judiciary administration rather than legislative or executive interference with judicial decision-making processes. Furthermore, it ruled that individual judges do not have standing to challenge these administrative decisions because they are not personally aggrieved parties but merely officers assigned duties under law; their role does not include challenging organizational arrangements established by higher authorities in judiciary system.

In the dissenting opinion for Chandler v. Judicial Council of the Tenth Circuit, Justice Black argued that the majority's decision was a violation of separation of powers principles and an overreach by judicial council power. He contended that Judge Chandler had been denied his constitutional right to due process because he was not given a fair hearing before being barred from hearing cases. Furthermore, Justice Black believed that only Congress has the authority to regulate or limit a judge’s ability to hear cases as per Article III of Constitution which guarantees life tenure “during good behavior” for federal judges. The action taken against Judge Chandler without any formal charges or trial, in his view, undermined this guarantee and set a dangerous precedent for future interference with judicial independence.