Free lawyers in contempt hearings
Turner v. Rogers
In brief
The Supreme Court found Turner’s detention violated his right to fair process, wiped out the state court’s ruling, and sent the case back.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 5-4 · June 20, 2011 · Opinion by Justice Breyer
- What it’s about
- Because the parent seeking child support had no lawyer, South Carolina could leave Turner without one only if it used safeguards to check his ability to pay.
- Who it affects
- The Court found Turner was jailed in violation of due process because the proceeding gave him neither a lawyer nor alternative safeguards.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Court found Turner’s incarceration violated due process because he lacked both protections, wiped out the state ruling (vacated it), and sent the case back (remanded).
Turner had completed his 12-month period of incarceration before the Supreme Court decided the case.
The dispute grew out of a South Carolina child-support case in which the court used civil contempt, a process for enforcing a court order.
Question presented
Do poor people who face incarceration for civil contempt have a Sixth Amendment constitutional right to a court-appointed attorney as protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
What the Court decided
Holding
Even though Turner has completed his 12-month sentence, and there are not alleged to be collateral consequences of the contempt determination that might keep the dispute alive, this case is not moot, because it is “capable of repetition” while “evading review,” Southern Pac. Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 219 U. S. 498, Under the circumstances, Turner’s incarceration violated due process because he received neither counsel nor the benefit of alternative procedures like those the Court describes. He did not have clear notice that his ability to pay would constitute the critical question in his civil contempt proceeding. No one provided him with a form (or the equivalent) designed to elicit information about his financial circumstances. 387 S. C. 142, 691 S. E. 2d 470, vacated and remanded.
- Result
- Vacated
The Court's reasoning
The Court found Turner’s right to fair process was violated because he had neither a lawyer nor the alternative procedures it described.
The vote
From the opinions
“The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not provide a right to appointed counsel for indigent defendants facing incarceration in civil contempt proceedings.”
What's next
The case goes back to the South Carolina Supreme Court for further proceedings. The Court’s ruling does not specify the exact next step there.
Documents
Opinions
Audio
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Show 5 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Audio Recording added: Oral Arguments - Turner
Opinion added: Turner
More questions
- Did the Court require appointed lawyers in every civil-contempt case?
- No. It found Turner’s rights were violated under these circumstances, where he had neither a lawyer nor alternative safeguards.
- What safeguards did Turner lack?
- He was not clearly told that his ability to pay was the key issue, and he received no form to provide information about his finances.
- Why could the Court review the case after Turner’s detention ended?
- It said similar disputes could recur but end too quickly for courts to review them.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.