In the case of Mills et al. v. Louisiana, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of a group of newspaper publishers who were charged with contempt by a state court for publishing editorials that criticized ongoing judicial proceedings and urged action against public officials involved in those proceedings. The state argued that such publications could potentially influence jurors and thus interfere with fair trials. However, the Supreme Court held that punishing these publishers violated their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and press as it constituted prior restraint on publication, which is generally unconstitutional unless there are exceptional circumstances like national security issues at stake. The court emphasized the importance of free discussion about governmental affairs including judiciary actions as essential to democratic processes.

In the dissenting opinion for Mills et al. v. Louisiana, Justice Frankfurter disagreed with the majority's decision to overturn a Louisiana law that prohibited newspapers from commenting on elections within 24 hours of voting. He argued that this was not an infringement upon freedom of speech or press as protected by the First Amendment because it did not suppress any particular viewpoint but rather aimed at preventing last-minute misinformation and confusion which could potentially influence voters in an unfair manner. Furthermore, he contended that states should have some degree of autonomy in regulating their own electoral processes without federal interference unless there is clear evidence of constitutional violation.