Donziger v. United States

The Supreme Court declined to hear the case of Steven Donziger, leaving in place a lower court ruling that allowed a judge to appoint private prosecutors. Donziger had argued that the Constitution does not allow judges to appoint their own prosecutors when the executive branch refuses to take the case.

This decision means that in certain situations, judges can still pick private lawyers to prosecute people for criminal contempt (disobeying a court order). This affects individuals who are involved in long-running legal battles where the government chooses not to get involved.

The case centers on the Appointments Clause, which usually gives the President the power to pick federal officers. It touches on the balance of power between the courts and the executive branch regarding who has the authority to enforce the law.

The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari (a request to hear the case), meaning the lower court's decision stands.

The Supreme Court will not step in to stop judges from appointing private prosecutors when the U.S. Attorney declines to act.

Legal experts will watch how lower courts and agencies respond to this outcome. The ruling confirms that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42(a)(2) remains a valid tool for judges to handle contempt charges.

The dispute was whether a judge can appoint a private lawyer to prosecute someone for criminal contempt. Steven Donziger argued this power belongs only to the executive branch.

Private citizens could face prosecution by lawyers chosen by a judge rather than the government. This may lead to more aggressive enforcement of court orders in complex civil cases.

The challenge focused on Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42(a)(2). This rule allows courts to appoint a prosecutor if the government declines to do so.

Since the Supreme Court denied the petition, the legal proceedings in this specific matter are largely finished. Parties must now follow the existing lower court rulings.

This case reflects ongoing debates about the Appointments Clause and the separation of powers. It shows the Court's current hesitation to limit judicial authority over contempt of court.