Robertson v. United States ex rel. Watson
The Supreme Court dismissed as improvidently granted the appeal of a man convicted of criminal contempt for violating a protective order, choosing not to decide whether such prosecutions must be brought in the government's name rather than a private citizen's.
The one-line order left the underlying legal question unresolved, and four justices dissented, arguing the Court should have answered the very question it had rewritten and agreed to decide.
“The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.”
The entire substance of the Court's disposition, deciding nothing on the merits.
How it got here: The D.C. Court of Appeals upheld Watson's private contempt prosecution against Robertson; he asked the Supreme Court to decide whether such prosecutions must be brought by the government, and the Court agreed to hear it.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Wykenna Watson obtained a civil protective order against her former boyfriend, John Robertson, after he assaulted her. Robertson later violated that order by assaulting her again, and separately pleaded guilty to a related assault charge under a deal with federal prosecutors that barred further charges over the incident. Watson then personally pursued criminal contempt charges against Robertson for violating the protective order, and he argued only the government could bring such a case.
The question before the Court
When a woman personally pursued criminal contempt charges against her ex-boyfriend for violating a protective order, did that prosecution have to be brought in the government's name instead of her own?
Why it matters
The dismissal leaves in place a lower-court ruling that allowed a private citizen, rather than a government prosecutor, to bring a criminal contempt case for violating a restraining order. Because the Supreme Court did not rule on the merits, similar arrangements for enforcing protective orders in Washington, D.C., and elsewhere remain legally uncertain and could resurface in future cases.
What changes now
Because the Court dismissed the writ, the D.C. Court of Appeals's decision stands and Robertson's contempt convictions and sentence are undisturbed. The broader question of whether private citizens can prosecute criminal contempt on their own authority remains unresolved by the Supreme Court itself and could be raised again in a future case with a cleaner record.
What this does not decide
This order does not decide whether criminal contempt prosecutions must be brought in the government's name rather than a private citizen's. The Court expressly declined to reach that question, and the dissent stressed that the dismissal carries no implication about the Court's views on the merits of the underlying dispute.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Roberts
“The terrifying force of the criminal justice system may only be brought to bear against an individual by society as a whole, through a prosecution brought on behalf of the government.”The dissent's core argument that criminal prosecutions must be brought by the government, not private citizens.
Chief Justice Roberts argued the Court should have answered the threshold question it had specifically rephrased and agreed to decide: whether criminal prosecutions, including contempt proceedings, must be brought on behalf of the government. Drawing on Blackstone, Locke, and prior precedent like Dixon and Bloom, he concluded that treating Watson's prosecution as a purely private action was constitutionally untenable and would have remanded for the lower court to reconsider the plea-agreement question with that understanding.
Dissent — Justice Sotomayor
Justice Sotomayor joined the Chief Justice's dissent but wrote separately to narrow its scope, emphasizing that the proposed holding addresses only criminal contempt proceedings and does not extend to civil contempt proceedings or cast doubt more broadly on existing systems for enforcing restraining orders.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court had granted certiorari and specifically rephrased the question presented to focus on whether a criminal contempt prosecution in a court like the D.C. Superior Court could constitutionally be brought in the name of a private person rather than the government.
- After receiving full briefing and hearing argument, the per curiam order did not analyze that question at all; it simply announced that the writ of certiorari was dismissed as improvidently granted, a device courts use to walk away from a case without deciding the issue they agreed to review.
- Because the writ was dismissed rather than decided, the D.C. Court of Appeals's ruling — which had treated Watson's contempt prosecution as a private action not bound by Robertson's government plea agreement — was left standing without Supreme Court review.
- Four justices dissented from the manner of disposition, contending that longstanding historical and constitutional principles required the Court to hold that criminal prosecutions, including contempt proceedings, must be brought on behalf of the government.