In Sacher v. United States, the Supreme Court examined whether a federal judge had the authority to hold defense attorneys in contempt of court without a jury trial. The case arose from the 1949 Smith Act trials where eleven Communist Party leaders were convicted for advocating overthrowing the U.S. government; their lawyers were also held in contempt by Judge Harold Medina for their conduct during proceedings and sentenced to prison terms ranging from one month to six months. On appeal, they argued that they should have been afforded a jury trial before being found guilty of criminal contempt. The Supreme Court upheld these convictions with a 5-3 vote (one justice abstained). It ruled that judges do possess such power under common law tradition and constitutional interpretation, as long as it is used sparingly and only when necessary to maintain order in courtrooms or uphold judicial dignity. The majority opinion stated that this power was not unlimited but did not require an additional hearing or separate procedure beyond what occurred at trial itself.

In the dissenting opinion for Sacher v. United States, Justice Black argued that the majority's decision to uphold contempt convictions against defense attorneys in a federal trial was an overreach of judicial power and violated due process rights. He contended that judges should not have absolute authority to punish lawyers for perceived misconduct during trials without review by another court or jury. This unchecked power could lead to abuses and infringe upon the constitutional right of defendants to counsel who can vigorously advocate on their behalf without fear of punishment from a potentially biased judge. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential chilling effects on free speech within courtrooms if lawyers are overly cautious about offending judges with their arguments or tactics.