In the case of In re Disbarment of Isserman in 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on whether or not to disbar attorney Abraham J. Isserman from practicing before them due to his conviction for conspiracy to advocate overthrowing the government by force and violence under the Smith Act. The court initially voted for disbarment but later granted a rehearing after one justice changed his vote. Upon reconsideration, however, they upheld their initial decision and disbared Isserman with a 5-3 majority ruling that an attorney convicted of such serious crimes was unfit to practice law before them as it violated professional ethics standards. This case is significant because it set precedent regarding how seriously courts should take ethical violations by attorneys.

The dissenting opinion in the case of In re Disbarment of Isserman argued that the majority's decision to disbar Abraham J. Isserman from practicing law before the Supreme Court was excessively harsh and unjustified by his actions. The dissenters believed that while Isserman had indeed been found guilty of contempt, this did not necessarily mean he lacked moral character or fitness to practice law. They pointed out that many respected figures throughout history have been held in contempt for standing up for their beliefs, suggesting it is possible to do so while still maintaining integrity and respect for justice. Furthermore, they criticized the majority's reliance on a previous ruling (In re Ruffalo) which they felt was misinterpreted and misapplied in this context. Overall, these justices felt that disbarment should be reserved only for those who demonstrate serious ethical violations or incompetence - criteria which they did not believe were met in Isserman’s case.