In the 1906 case Patterson v. Colorado, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a contempt conviction against newspaper publisher Thomas Patterson for criticizing judges and their decisions in his publication, The Rocky Mountain News. The court ruled that freedom of speech and press did not protect publications intending to influence pending or ongoing judicial proceedings as it could obstruct justice by swaying public opinion and potentially influencing jury members. This decision was based on English common law principles which prioritized maintaining the integrity of courts over free expression rights under certain circumstances such as this one. However, this ruling has since been largely overturned by later cases establishing broader First Amendment protections.

In the dissenting opinion for Patterson v. Colorado, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. argued that freedom of speech and press should be protected even when it criticizes the judiciary system. He believed that such criticism could not obstruct justice unless it created a clear and present danger to its administration. According to him, punishing someone for criticizing judicial decisions after they have been made is akin to denying them their constitutional right to express an opinion about public affairs. Furthermore, he asserted that judges are supposed to be men of fortitude who can thrive in tough times without needing protection from newspapers' criticisms or false statements against them.