In Eisler v. United States, 1948, Gerhart Eisler was charged with contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions about his alleged affiliation with the Communist Party during a hearing before the House Committee on Un-American Activities. He argued that he had been denied due process because he was not allowed counsel during the committee hearing and that his refusal to answer questions did not constitute contempt since they were irrelevant to any legislative purpose. The Supreme Court rejected these arguments, ruling that while individuals have a right to counsel in criminal trials, this does not extend to congressional hearings unless specifically provided by law or rules of procedure. Furthermore, it held that determining relevance is primarily up to Congress itself rather than courts and thus Eisler's refusal could be considered contemptuous.

In the dissenting opinion for Eisler v. United States, Justice Wiley Rutledge argued that Gerhart Eisler's conviction should be overturned due to procedural errors and violations of his constitutional rights. He contended that the trial court erred in denying Eisler's motion for a bill of particulars, which would have specified the charges against him more clearly. This denial prevented Eisler from adequately preparing his defense and violated his right to due process under the Fifth Amendment. Additionally, Rutledge believed that some evidence used against Eisler was obtained illegally and thus should not have been admitted at trial. Finally, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of certain statutes under which Eisley was charged; he felt these laws were being applied too broadly in this case.