 The defense attorneys appealed their contempt sentences , which were handed out by Judge Medina under Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure . The attorneys raised a variety of issues on appeal , including the purported misconduct of the judge , and the claim that they were deprived of due process because there was no hearing to evaluate the merits of the contempt charge . They argued that the contempt charges would prevent future CPUSA defendants from obtaining counsel , because attorneys would be afraid of judicial retaliation . The initial appeal to the federal appeals court was not successful : The court reviewed Medina 's actions , and reversed some specifications of contempt , but affirmed the convictions . The attorneys then appealed to the Supreme Court which denied the initial petition , but later reconsidered and accepted the appeal . The Supreme Court limited their review to the question , " was the charge of contempt , as and when certified , one which the accusing judge was authorized under Rule 42 ( a ) to determine and punish himself ; or was it one to be adjudged and punished under Rule 42 ( b ) only by a judge other than the accusing one and after notice , hearing , and opportunity to defend ? " . The Supreme Court , in an opinion written by Justice Robert Jackson , upheld the contempt sentences by a 5 – 3 vote . Jackson 's opinion stated that " summary punishment always , and rightly , is regarded with disfavor , and , if imposed in passion or pettiness , brings discredit to a court as certainly as the conduct it penalizes . But the very practical reasons which have led every system of law to vest a contempt power in one who presides over judicial proceedings also are the reasons which account for it being made summary . " 
