In the case of United States v. Providence Journal Co., the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government, upholding a contempt citation against The Providence Journal newspaper for violating a court order not to publish certain information related to an ongoing criminal trial. The paper had published articles about taped conversations that were part of evidence in a mob-related murder trial despite being explicitly ordered by federal district judge Francis J. Boyle not to do so. In its decision, the Supreme Court held that it was within Judge Boyle's power and discretion as presiding officer over his courtroom to issue such an order and enforce it with sanctions if violated, even though this involved restricting freedom of press rights under First Amendment protections.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Providence Journal Co., Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Marshall and Blackmun, argued that the Court should not have decided this case because it was moot. They contended that since the fines imposed on The Providence Journal had already been paid and could not be refunded even if they won their appeal, there was no longer a live controversy to adjudicate. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view that an exception to mootness applied due to potential future penalties against The Providence Journal under similar circumstances. Instead of speculating about hypothetical situations where such penalties might occur again in future cases involving different parties or facts, they believed it would be more appropriate for those issues to be addressed when they actually arise.