A contempt of court is disobedience to a court's order or disrespect to its authority, either in or out of court. Despite the silence of the Constitution on this subject, an inherent power of contempt, derived from common law, has been deemed necessary to insure that federal courts are able to enforce their judgments and orders. The Judiciary Act of 1789 conferred power on federal courts to punish contempts, and they retain that power today by statute and rule.
A civil contempt is the refusal to obey an order in a civil case. Usually the person is ordered into custody or is fined progressively, or both, until the contempt is purged by compliance—for example, by testifying or producing a document. A criminal contempt is an act that cannot be purged, and for which punishment is imposed to vindicate the authority and dignity of the court. A person who commits a criminal contempt may be charged under a statute for a separate crime and separately tried, or may be summarily held in contempt without the rights afforded a criminal defendant.
Procedurally, constitutional rulings have narrowed the authority of the judge to act summarily and have required due process safeguards (see Due Process, Procedural). Substantively, the First Amendment is the most important limit on the contempt authority. In Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976), for example, the Court applied the clear and present danger test to reverse a “gag order” restraining publication of material disclosed before trial that implicated a criminal defendant (see Pretrial Publicity and the Gag Rule).
See also Lower Federal Courts.
Bibliography
- Mark Curriden and Leroy Phillips, Jr., Contempt of Court—The Turn‐of‐the‐Century Lynching That Launched 100 Years of Federalism (1999)
— Thomas E. Baker
