In the case of Sacher et al. v. United States, 1951, the Supreme Court ruled on whether contempt convictions against lawyers for their conduct during a trial were valid without them being given an opportunity to defend themselves in front of another judge. The defendants were attorneys who had represented individuals accused of violating the Smith Act by advocating for overthrowing the U.S. government and establishing a communist regime instead. During this trial, they allegedly engaged in disruptive behavior which led to their conviction for criminal contempt by Judge Harold Medina without any separate hearing or chance to defend themselves before another judge. The Supreme Court upheld these convictions with a 5-3 majority decision stating that federal judges have inherent power to maintain order and decorum in courtrooms; thus they can punish direct contempts summarily as long as it is done reasonably and fairly within constitutional limits. They further stated that due process does not require such cases be heard by different judges since impartiality cannot be expected from those directly involved in maintaining courtroom discipline.

In the dissenting opinion for SACHER ET AL. v. UNITED STATES, Justice Hugo Black argued that the majority's decision to uphold contempt convictions against lawyers who allegedly disrupted court proceedings was a dangerous precedent that could undermine legal representation and due process rights. He contended that attorneys should have wide latitude in defending their clients without fear of punishment from judges who might disagree with or take offense at their arguments or tactics. Furthermore, he expressed concern about allowing trial judges to act as both accuser and judge in such cases, arguing it violated basic principles of fairness and impartiality inherent in American jurisprudence system. In his view, any alleged misconduct by attorneys should be addressed through separate proceedings where they would have an opportunity to defend themselves rather than being summarily punished on the spot by a potentially biased judge.