In the 1939 case United States v. Stone, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with issues of judicial power and authority in relation to contempt proceedings. The case arose when a federal judge, Charles B. Stone, was charged with criminal contempt by a grand jury for refusing to allow them access to evidence they had requested from him regarding an ongoing investigation into alleged corruption within his court district in Florida. Judge Stone argued that he held discretionary powers over such matters as part of his role as a District Judge and thus could not be held criminally liable for exercising those powers. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument and upheld the charges against Judge Stone on appeal, ruling that no person is above the law - including judges - and that any abuse or misuse of judicial power can be subject to legal action if it obstructs justice or violates constitutional rights. This landmark decision helped establish important precedents about checks on judicial authority and reinforced principles of accountability within all branches of government.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Stone, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a contempt of court charge against an attorney who had criticized a judge in a newspaper article. He argued that this ruling violated the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and press, as well as due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. According to him, criticism of public officials should be allowed unless it poses a clear and present danger or serious threat to administration of justice which was not evident in this case. Furthermore, he contended that judges are not immune from criticism; they must bear such scrutiny like any other public servant without resorting to punishment through contempt proceedings for mere defamation or insult.