In the 1945 case of Pennekamp et al. v. Florida, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of freedom of speech and press over concerns about contempt of court. The Miami Herald had published two editorials and a cartoon criticizing the Florida courts for their handling of certain cases involving public officials accused of corruption. As a result, John Pennekamp, an editor at the newspaper along with others were convicted by local courts for contempt due to these publications which allegedly interfered with ongoing judicial proceedings. However, upon appeal to the Supreme Court, it was held that while judges needed protection from false accusations that could undermine their authority or impede justice; criticism - even if harsh - did not necessarily pose such threats unless there was clear evidence showing interference with fair administration of justice in specific cases under consideration by courts. Therefore, reversing lower court's decision against Pennekamp and his colleagues on grounds that they violated First Amendment rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Pennekamp et al. v. Florida, Justice Robert H. Jackson argued that freedom of speech and press should not be absolute, especially when it interferes with the functioning of courts or undermines public confidence in them. He believed that a balance must be struck between free expression and maintaining an effective judicial system; thus, he supported restrictions on publications that could potentially influence ongoing court proceedings or impugn judges' integrity without sufficient evidence. While acknowledging the importance of criticism to keep judiciary accountable, he insisted such criticism should have reasonable limits to prevent harm to justice administration and individuals involved in legal processes.