Contempt power of courts
Contempt power of the courts is a legal authority that enables courts to enforce respect and compliance with their orders and proceedings. Originating from common law, this power was formally established for federal courts through the Judiciary Act of 1789. Historically, the scope of this power was broad, but it was significantly narrowed by a statute in 1831, which specified three primary instances where contempt could be applied: disruption in the courtroom, misconduct by court officers, and defiance of court orders by any involved party. Contempt can be classified as civil or criminal; civil contempt focuses on enforcing compliance with a court order, often resulting in immediate penalties that can persist until compliance is achieved. In contrast, criminal contempt involves actions that violate court directives, resulting in fixed punishments. Landmark Supreme Court decisions in the mid-20th century established essential due process rights, ensuring that individuals facing serious charges of contempt receive a fair trial, thereby safeguarding against potential abuses of judicial power. Additionally, these rulings have underscored the importance of First Amendment rights, limiting the use of contempt in cases involving press freedom. This complex interplay of legal standards reflects the courts' role in maintaining order while respecting individual rights.
Subject Terms
Contempt power of courts
Definition: Mechanism by which courts punish those who disobey their orders or disrespect their authority, in and out of court.
Significance: The Supreme Court has acted to place limits on this power, which is not mentioned in the Constitution but is deemed inherent.
The contempt power of the courts, derived from common law, was directly conferred on federal courts by the Judiciary Act of 1789. It was broadly interpreted until 1830 when Judge James H. Peck used the power to disbar and imprison a man who published an article critical of him. In 1831 a statute was enacted limiting the contempt power to three situations: misbehavior in the court’s presence or so near as to cause disruption of the court’s business, misbehavior of an officer of the court in the conduct of official business, and disobedience or resistance to a court’s order by an officer of the court or any other interested party, including jurors and witnesses.
Contempt can be civil or criminal. Civil contempt, disobedience to a court’s order, is a summary proceeding, with a sentence imposed immediately. Punishment may be incremental and continue until the wrongdoer complies with the court’s order. Criminal contempt, commission of a forbidden act, carries a set, defined punishment. It was not subject to trial until 1966, when the Supreme Court ruled federal courts could not impose a sentence longer than six months without a trial. The Court constitutionally extended the right to trial to state courts in Duncan v. Louisiana (1968). On the same day, in Bloom v. Illinois (1968), the Court ruled that both state and federal courts must allow a jury trial to persons charged with serious criminal contempt.
A number of Court rulings limited the ability of judges to act summarily by requiring due process safeguards. The Court also limited courts’ ability to use contempt in cases involving the First Amendment, such as Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976), in which it revoked a gag order placed on the press.