In Toledo Newspaper Co. v. United States, 247 U.S. 402 (1918), the court held that the Act of 1831 "conferred no power not already granted and imposed no limitations not already existing," that a newspaper publication commenting on a pending case in federal court constituted contempt because it had a "reasonable tendency" to obstruct the administration of justice, since its purpose was to influence the judge regarding his decision, and that it was immaterial the publication had not been circulated in the courtroom or seen by the judge, because "the wrong depends upon the tendency of the acts to accomplish this result." Under Toledo, the question whether the misbehavior took place far from or near to the court does not arise. The only question is whether it caused or tended to cause an obstruction to the administration of justice; if it did, it must of necessity have been near enough to the court to do so. Justice Holmes's dissent, in which Justice Brandeis concurred, is a vanguard to contemporary American contempt law, pointing out "the limit so near as to obstruct is too plain to be construed away," and summary sanction is justified only in cases of imminent threat ("only immediate and necessary action is contemplated").