In the 1927 case of Ex Parte Collins, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving contempt of court. The petitioner, Mr. Collins, was held in contempt by a lower court for failing to answer questions during grand jury proceedings related to an investigation into alleged municipal corruption in New Orleans. He appealed his conviction arguing that he had not been properly informed about why he was being questioned and thus could not be held in contempt for refusing to answer. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument and upheld his conviction stating that it is unnecessary for a witness before a grand jury to know the nature or character of the inquiry underway as long as they are asked relevant questions under oath.

In the dissenting opinion for Ex Parte Collins, it was argued that the majority's decision to deny habeas corpus relief was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that the petitioner had not been given a fair trial due to prejudicial publicity and mob influence, which violated his constitutional rights. They contended that these circumstances created an atmosphere of intimidation and fear among jurors, thereby preventing them from making impartial decisions based on evidence presented in court. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of federal jurisdiction over state criminal proceedings under habeas corpus law. In their view, federal courts should intervene when there is clear evidence of constitutional violations in state trials regardless if all available state remedies have been exhausted or not.