Maness v. Meyers

Background

In a Texas injunctive hearing, a lawyer represented a client who had been convicted for selling obscene magazines and was subpoenaed to produce 52 additional magazines. Counsel moved to quash, arguing production risked criminal prosecution. After the motion was denied, the client refused to produce the magazines on his lawyers’ advice. The trial judge found the client and the lawyers in contempt and imposed fines and jail terms; state courts affirmed.

Reasoning

The Court framed the question as whether a lawyer can be punished for advising a client in good faith to assert the Fifth Amendment in a civil proceeding. The opinion explained that court orders normally must be obeyed, but when disclosure could cause irreparable self‑incrimination a witness may resist and seek appellate review. Because the record showed good‑faith advice and no contumacious conduct, the Court held the lawyer could not be punished for that advice.

Real world impact

The ruling protects lawyers who reasonably advise clients to assert the constitutional privilege against self‑incrimination in civil proceedings that can compel testimony. It limits courts’ ability to cite counsel for contempt solely for good‑faith advice. The decision does not resolve whether these particular magazines were protected, and it leaves open different treatment for bad‑faith or frivolous advice.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices White and Stewart agreed the contempt could not stand but emphasized different bases: Justice White stressed functional immunity and Garrity‑type protection, while Justice Stewart focused on due‑process concerns about retained counsel and the attorney‑client relationship.