Lance v. Plummer Et Al.

Background

A Florida deputy sheriff was not named in a lawsuit but was accused of following and threatening a Black man who tried to register at a local motel after a federal judge had issued an injunction protecting Black patrons. The injunction forbade certain named people from intimidating Black customers and said its prohibitions applied to "any other person to whom notice or knowledge of this Order may come." An affidavit led to a show-cause order, and the judge held the deputy in summary contempt, fined him $200 to the plaintiffs’ lawyers, ordered him to surrender his badge and resign, and banned him from acting as a law officer.

Reasoning

The core dispute is whether a federal injunction can be enforced against someone who was not a party but had notice, and whether a judge may, after a summary contempt hearing, remove a state officer from his position. The dissents point to an older Supreme Court decision and Rule 65(d) that suggest courts should not bind nonparties who merely have notice. The Court of Appeals affirmed the contempt finding but modified the punishment so the deputy could seek reinstatement by convincing the district judge he would comply.

Real world impact

The Supreme Court denied review, leaving the lower-court contempt finding and its consequences in place for now. The denial leaves unresolved whether courts may bind nonparties by injunction or use summary contempt to oust state officers. That uncertainty affects how federal courts can enforce civil-rights injunctions against individuals not originally sued.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices Black and Harlan dissented from the denial of review, arguing the questions are important and that allowing federal judges to remove state officers is a dangerous expansion of power that should be examined by this Court.