October Term 2009 · Docket 08-6261
Can a federal district court prosecute criminal contempt without the U.S. Attorney?
The dispute centers on whether a federal district court holds exclusive power to prosecute criminal contempt or must defer to the U.S. Attorney.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Ms. Frankfurt argued that criminal prosecution is a foundational sovereign power.
She stated that the U.S. Attorney must control these proceedings.
General Kagan argued that the case involves two distinct legal questions.
She noted that separation of powers principles apply differently in D.C.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 49-51 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 49-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 7-19 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 7-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 3-27 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 3-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 51-5 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 51-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 43-49 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 43-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 15-33 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 15-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 47-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 47-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 19-51 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 19-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 7-35 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 7-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 21-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 25-37 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 25-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 39-51 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 39-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 21-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 3-9 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 3-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 37-47 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 37-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 37-3 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 37-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 15-23 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 15-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 33-33 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 33-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 41-49 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 41-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 64, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 64, lines 11-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 11-45 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 11-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 47-9 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 47-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 7-13 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 7-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 51-13 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 51-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 29-41 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 29-41
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the constitutional limits of federal court authority. It asks if a district court can independently prosecute criminal contempt. The core issue involves the separation of powers. It challenges the traditional role of the executive branch in criminal prosecutions.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 15-33 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 15-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 7-35 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 7-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 39-51 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 39-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 11-45 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 11-45
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 31, 2010.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 3-9 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 3-9
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants the Court to rule that only the U.S. Attorney can prosecute criminal contempt.
the opposing side wants the Court to affirm the district court’s independent power to prosecute criminal contempt.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 15-33 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 15-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 7-35 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 7-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 39-51 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 39-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 11-45 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 11-45
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues that criminal prosecution is a sovereign power reserved for the executive branch.
the opposing side argues that district courts possess inherent authority to enforce their own orders through contempt.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 15-33 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 15-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 7-35 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 7-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 39-51 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 39-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 11-45 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 11-45
What the justices asked
Justice Stevens asked if the procedure inherently violates the Constitution.
Justice Scalia asked if the district and the Attorney General share coordinate jurisdiction over these crimes.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 49-51 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 49-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 7-19 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 7-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 3-27 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 3-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 51-5 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 51-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 43-49 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 43-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 47-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 47-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 19-51 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 19-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 21-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 25-37 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 25-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 21-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 3-9 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 3-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 37-47 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 37-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 37-3 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 37-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 15-23 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 15-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 33-33 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 33-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 41-49 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 41-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 64, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 64, lines 11-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 47-9 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 47-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 7-13 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 7-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 51-13 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 51-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 29-41 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 29-41
Why it matters
This case defines the boundary between judicial and executive power. It determines who controls criminal prosecutions in federal courts. The outcome shapes the balance of government branches. It affects the independence of federal judges. It clarifies the role of the U.S. Attorney in local court enforcement.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 15-33 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 15-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 7-35 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 7-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 39-51 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 39-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 11-45 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 11-45
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 49-51 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 49-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 7-19 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 7-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 3-27 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 3-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 51-5 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 51-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 43-49 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 43-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 47-5 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 47-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 19-51 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 19-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 21-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 25-37 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 25-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 21-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 3-9 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 3-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 37-47 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 37-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 37-3 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 37-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 15-23 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 15-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 33-33 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 33-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 41-49 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 41-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 63, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 63, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 64, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 64, lines 11-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 47-9 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 47-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 7-13 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 7-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 51-13 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 51-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 29-41 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 29-41
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 15-33 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 15-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 7-35 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 7-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 39-51 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 39-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 11-45 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 11-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 15-33 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 15-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 7-35 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 7-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 39-51 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 39-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 11-45 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 11-45
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.