In the case of Judice v. Vail (1976), a group of New York state judges were sued by individuals who had been held in contempt and jailed for failing to pay court-ordered alimony or child support payments. The plaintiffs argued that their constitutional rights were violated because they did not receive adequate notice before being found in contempt, and they also claimed that the judges showed bias against them due to their inability to pay. They sought an injunction preventing the judges from enforcing any further contempt orders until these issues could be resolved. The U.S Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in favor of the defendant-judges, stating that federal courts should abstain from interfering with ongoing state proceedings unless there are extraordinary circumstances which create a threat of irreparable injury that is both great and immediate. The Court noted this was not such a case as plaintiffs had ample opportunity within state judicial system itself to raise their constitutional claims before resorting to federal intervention.

In the dissenting opinion for Juidice et al., Judges v. Vail et al., Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Stewart and Marshall, argued that the majority's decision failed to adequately protect individuals' constitutional rights against state action. They contended that New York's contempt procedures were fundamentally unfair because they allowed a judge to both initiate charges and then adjudicate those same charges without any opportunity for review or appeal. This dual role of prosecutor and judge was seen as inherently biased and in violation of due process guarantees under the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissent also criticized the majority for failing to address whether these procedures violated an individual’s right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law when used as a means of coercing payment from indigent debtors who could not pay their debts.