In the 1998 case In re Michael Kennedy, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a lawyer could be disciplined for making disparaging remarks about judges in public statements outside of court proceedings. The petitioner, attorney Michael Kennedy, had been censured by the California State Bar for his comments criticizing several federal and state judges. He argued that this disciplinary action violated his First Amendment rights to free speech. The Supreme Court ruled against Kennedy, upholding the authority of states to discipline attorneys for their out-of-court statements that show disrespect towards judicial officers or impugn their integrity if those comments pose a threat to the administration of justice. The court reasoned that lawyers have an ethical duty not only to uphold legal standards but also maintain respect toward all judiciary members as part of maintaining public confidence in our legal system. This decision underscored how freedom of speech can be limited when it comes into conflict with other important societal interests such as preserving respect and trust in our judicial institutions.

The dissenting opinion in the case of In re Michael Kennedy argued that the majority's decision to deny a writ of habeas corpus was incorrect. The dissenters believed that there were significant issues with how Kennedy's trial had been conducted, including potential prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance from his defense counsel. They also pointed out inconsistencies in the testimony of key witnesses for the prosecution, which they felt should have raised reasonable doubt about Kennedy's guilt. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of federal law regarding when a defendant can be granted relief on habeas corpus grounds. According to them, this restrictive interpretation could potentially prevent other defendants who had received unfair trials from obtaining justice as well.