In the case of Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 1965, the United States Supreme Court ruled on whether a criminal contempt sentence could exceed six months without a jury trial. The petitioner, John S. Cheff was sentenced to one year in prison for contempt of court by Judge Richard B. Austin after he refused to answer questions before a grand jury regarding alleged violations of federal securities laws and obstruction of justice charges related to his role as an officer at Studebaker Corporation. He argued that this violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial because it exceeded six months' imprisonment. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ decision with Justice Hugo Black dissenting alone arguing that any sentence over six months should require a jury trial under the Constitution's guarantee for such trials in "all crimes." However, majority opinion held that since criminal contempt is not considered an offense against "the dignity and authority" but rather against "the administration of justice," it does not fall within constitutional guarantees requiring juries in all cases involving serious offenses.

In the dissenting opinion for Cheff v. Schnackenberg, Justice Hugo Black argued that a sentence of six months or more is serious enough to warrant a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment. He disagreed with the majority's view that only sentences over one year are 'serious' and thus require a jury trial. Black believed this distinction was arbitrary and not based on any constitutional principle or historical precedent. Instead, he maintained that whether an offense is petty or serious should be determined by its nature rather than its punishment length alone. Furthermore, he contended that denying defendants their right to a jury trial could lead to potential abuses of power by judges who might impose harsher penalties without proper checks and balances in place.