In the case of Leech v. State of Louisiana in 1908, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a conviction for contempt against an attorney who had criticized a judge's ruling while court was not in session. The attorney, Mr. Leech, argued that his criticism did not obstruct justice and therefore should be protected by his First Amendment rights to free speech. However, the Supreme Court disagreed and held that even comments made outside of court could constitute contempt if they were intended to influence or intimidate the judiciary into making certain decisions or rulings. This decision affirmed that maintaining respect for judicial proceedings is paramount over individual freedom of expression when such expressions are aimed at undermining judicial authority.

In the dissenting opinion for Leech v. State of Louisiana, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold Mr. Leech's conviction violated his constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissenting justices believed that Mr. Leech had been denied due process because he was not given a fair opportunity to defend himself against the charges brought by the state of Louisiana. They contended that this denial occurred when evidence crucial to his defense was excluded from trial and when he wasn't allowed sufficient time or resources to prepare an adequate defense strategy before being rushed into court proceedings. Furthermore, they disagreed with how broadly and arbitrarily public nuisance laws were applied in this case, which they felt could lead to potential abuses of power by law enforcement officials in future cases if left unchecked.