DOLMAN Et Al. v. UNITED STATES
Headline: Court denies stay for two convicted of criminal contempt for violating a court injunction, leaving convictions in effect while a related case about whether unnamed individuals can be bound proceeds.
Holding: The Court denied the two men’s request to stay their Ninth Circuit contempt convictions, instructing them to seek a stay first from the Court of Appeals and leaving the convictions in force for now.
- Leaves contempt convictions in force unless the Court of Appeals grants a stay.
- Requires the two men to apply first to the Ninth Circuit for an emergency stay.
- Keeps the broader question of who can be bound by an injunction under review.
Summary
Background
Two men, Dolman and Wilson, were convicted under a federal criminal contempt law (18 U.S.C. § 401(3)) for violating an injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The Ninth Circuit affirmed those convictions. The men argued they could not be bound by the injunction because they were not named parties in the original district-court lawsuit, while the government relied on earlier cases treating some citizens as in “privity” with a State and therefore bound by an injunction to which the State was a party.
Reasoning
Justice Rehnquist, acting as Circuit Justice, noted that the Supreme Court has held a contempt conviction can stand even if the underlying injunction is later found invalid, but that those cases assume the issuing court had jurisdiction over the parties. He observed that the specific question whether an unnamed individual who does business in a State can be directly bound by an injunction (and must receive notice and a chance to participate) is being reviewed in a related case for which certiorari was granted. Rehnquist said there are substantial arguments favoring a stay but denied the men’s emergency application now because they had not clearly sought a stay first from the Ninth Circuit, as the Court’s rules normally require. He directed them to apply to the Court of Appeals first and said he would consider a renewed request if that application is denied.
Real world impact
For now, the men’s contempt convictions remain in force. The decision emphasizes procedural rules: emergency stays should first be sought from the court that decided the case. The larger question about whether unnamed individuals can be bound by an injunction will be decided in the related case now before the Court, so the legal rule could still change on final review.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?