Fact Pattern

In order to assure that their judgments and orders are obeyed, courts have traditionally exercised the power to hold parties in contempt of court. Contempt of court can be civil, with fines and other penalties imposed short of imprisonment, or it can be criminal, with fines and/or imprisonment imposed on parties found to be in contempt.

To provide a level of due process in contempt proceedings, Congress recently enacted a law that forbids courts to prosecute criminal contempt actions on their own initiative. The law requires cases of criminal contempt to be turned over to United States prosecutors to be processed in accordance with normal criminal procedures. The statute permits courts to continue their practice of citing and determining civil contempt. Many judges are not happy with the congressional restriction of their traditional contempt powers.

In a recent labor relations case, party Jones to the suit was found to have willfully evaded and ignored parts of the court’s temporary restraining order in open defiance of the court. United States District Judge Smyth cited Jones for criminal contempt, held a brief hearing in which Jones had the opportunity to respond to the charges against him, and then found Jones in contempt and committed  him to ten days in jail. Jones immediately sought a writ of habeas corpus before another District Court judge.

In his habeas hearing, what is Jones’s strongest argument against his incarceration? What is Smyth’s best response? Who wins?