In the Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Company case of 1910, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with issues related to labor unions and contempt of court orders. The American Federation of Labor (AFL), led by Samuel Gompers, was accused by the Bucks Stove & Range Company for violating a court injunction that prohibited AFL from including them in their "We Don't Patronize" list - an initiative aimed at boycotting companies deemed unfair to workers' rights. The lower courts found AFL guilty of contempt for disobeying this order and sentenced its leaders to jail time without trial or jury, arguing that it was civil rather than criminal contempt due to its coercive intent instead of punitive nature. The Supreme Court overturned these rulings on appeal, stating that despite labels used by lower courts, if punishment is inflicted without providing constitutional protections like right to trial or jury as in criminal cases then it's essentially criminal contempt not civil one; hence such punishments were unconstitutional here where defendants weren't given those rights before sentencing them.

In the dissenting opinion for Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Company, Justice Moody argued that the court's ruling was an overreach of judicial power and a violation of constitutional rights. He contended that by holding union leaders in contempt for violating an injunction against promoting a boycott, the majority had effectively criminalized peaceful labor organizing activities protected under free speech and assembly rights. Moreover, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "contempt," arguing it should only apply to actions disrupting courtroom proceedings or directly defying specific court orders - not broadly applied to acts outside direct jurisdiction of courts such as labor strikes or boycotts. Additionally, he criticized how contempt charges were used punitively rather than remedially; instead of restoring order or enforcing compliance with law, they served as punishment which he believed fell within purview of criminal law requiring due process protections like jury trials - denied in this case.