In the 1989 case of Spallone v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on whether individual city council members could be held in contempt for refusing to implement a housing desegregation order against their city. The City of Yonkers and its officials were ordered by a federal district court to create public housing in predominantly white neighborhoods as part of an effort to desegregate residential areas. When four out of seven council members refused, they were individually fined $500 per day until they complied with the order. On appeal, the Supreme Court found that while it was appropriate for courts to hold municipalities accountable for such violations, holding individual legislators personally liable was not permissible unless there was clear evidence that no other remedy would work or if individuals had obstructed compliance efforts beyond simply voting against them. Therefore, although acknowledging that these officials' actions perpetuated racial discrimination and violated constitutional rights, the fines imposed on them were vacated.

In the dissenting opinion for SPALLONE v. UNITED STATES et al., Justice Anthony Kennedy argued that the majority's decision to hold individual city council members in contempt was a violation of their constitutional rights. He contended that while it is within the court’s power to enforce its orders, this should not extend to coercing legislative officials into voting in a particular way as it undermines democratic principles and violates separation of powers doctrine. Furthermore, he expressed concern about setting a precedent where courts could compel legislators' votes under threat of fines or imprisonment, which would infringe on their First Amendment right to freedom of speech and political expression. In his view, such an approach disrupts checks and balances by allowing judicial overreach into legislative affairs.