Turner v. Rogers
Encyclopedia
Turner v. Rogers, is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court on June 20, 2011, that held that a state must provide safeguards to reduce the risk of erroneous deprivation of liberty in civil contempt cases such as child support cases. The decision, however, stopped short of requiring that a state provide counsel to indigent defendants in civil contempt cases.
During his most recent term in prison, Turner appealed his sentencing, claiming that he was entitled to counsel at his hearing. Before the case was heard by the South Carolina Supreme Court
, however, Turner's sentence expired, and the South Carolina Supreme Court subsequently rejected the claim, distinguishing between civil contempt and criminal contempt, arguing that counsel was only required for the latter. Turner's pro bono counsel then appealed the case on Turner's behalf to the U.S. Supreme Court.
, the Supreme Court rejected the claim of mootness
by South Carolina, arguing that the time period of the sentence is too short to allow for full adjudication of the sentence, the likelihood of Turner being subjected to civil contempt proceedings again (that is, being capable of repetition) made the case not moot (distinguishing this case from DeFunis v. Odegaard
, where the case was decided to be moot), proceeding to rule on the merits. Breyer held that a state is under no obligation to provide free counsel to indigent defendants in civil contempt cases, especially if the plaintiff is not represented by counsel (as was the case here). However, Breyer held that the South Carolina courts were under an obligation to provide an alternative procedures to ensure a fair determination of the questions at hand. Since Turner did not have clear notice that ability to pay would be the critical question in this proceeding, nor was he provided with information that would have allowed Turner to disclose such information, the South Carolina courts erred in finding him able to pay and thus in civil contempt.
authored a dissenting opinion in which he noted that the 14th Amendment never provided for alternative safeguards to ensure that protections under the 14th Amendment were not violated, and that the 6th Amendment only applies to criminal prosecutions, and not civil cases, and that as such, the 6th Amendment does not require the state to provide counsel to indigent defendants (in this case, neither side was represented by counsel at the initial civil contempt hearing). Thomas further argued (with Justice Antonin Scalia
, but not Chief Justice John G. Roberts or Samuel Alito
joining) that the majority opinion did not consider the effects of this decision with respect to child support payments, and expressed concern that the majority opinion would undermine state efforts to collect child support payments.
Background
The petitioner in this case, Michael D. Turner, was jailed six times between 2003 and 2010 for accumulated child support payment arrears. The duration of Turner's jail spells ranged from one day to eight months. A person being in arrears on child support payments is not unusual: in 2008, 11.2 million U.S. child support cases had arrears due. The number of persons kept in jail or in prison for child support arrears is not generally tracked. Based on a publicly available collection of relevant data, an estimated 50,000 persons are kept in jail or in person on any given day in the U.S. for child support arrears. Hence Turner v. Rogers does not merely concern a technical question of legal procedure. Being in arrears on child support payments is a situation that many persons experience. Moreover, as a result of child support debt, many persons in the U.S. are being imprisoned.During his most recent term in prison, Turner appealed his sentencing, claiming that he was entitled to counsel at his hearing. Before the case was heard by the South Carolina Supreme Court
South Carolina Supreme Court
The South Carolina Supreme Court is the highest court in the U.S. state of South Carolina. The court is composed of a Chief Justice and four Associate Justices.-Selection of Justices:...
, however, Turner's sentence expired, and the South Carolina Supreme Court subsequently rejected the claim, distinguishing between civil contempt and criminal contempt, arguing that counsel was only required for the latter. Turner's pro bono counsel then appealed the case on Turner's behalf to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Questions presented
- Whether the Supreme Court of South Carolina erred in holding-in conflict with twenty-two federal courts of appeals and state courts of last resort-that an indigent defendant has no constitutional right to appointed counsel at a civil contempt proceeding that results in his incarceration
- Whether the Court has jurisdiction to review the decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court.
Ruling
In a 5-4 ruling, in a decision written by Justice Stephen BreyerStephen Breyer
Stephen Gerald Breyer is an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1994, and known for his pragmatic approach to constitutional law, Breyer is generally associated with the more liberal side of the Court....
, the Supreme Court rejected the claim of mootness
Mootness
In American law, a matter is moot if further legal proceedings with regard to it can have no effect, or events have placed it beyond the reach of the law...
by South Carolina, arguing that the time period of the sentence is too short to allow for full adjudication of the sentence, the likelihood of Turner being subjected to civil contempt proceedings again (that is, being capable of repetition) made the case not moot (distinguishing this case from DeFunis v. Odegaard
DeFunis v. Odegaard
DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 , was a United States Supreme Court case decided on April 23, 1974, that was determined to be moot, and therefore could not go forward...
, where the case was decided to be moot), proceeding to rule on the merits. Breyer held that a state is under no obligation to provide free counsel to indigent defendants in civil contempt cases, especially if the plaintiff is not represented by counsel (as was the case here). However, Breyer held that the South Carolina courts were under an obligation to provide an alternative procedures to ensure a fair determination of the questions at hand. Since Turner did not have clear notice that ability to pay would be the critical question in this proceeding, nor was he provided with information that would have allowed Turner to disclose such information, the South Carolina courts erred in finding him able to pay and thus in civil contempt.
Dissent
Justice Clarence ThomasClarence Thomas
Clarence Thomas is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Succeeding Thurgood Marshall, Thomas is the second African American to serve on the Court....
authored a dissenting opinion in which he noted that the 14th Amendment never provided for alternative safeguards to ensure that protections under the 14th Amendment were not violated, and that the 6th Amendment only applies to criminal prosecutions, and not civil cases, and that as such, the 6th Amendment does not require the state to provide counsel to indigent defendants (in this case, neither side was represented by counsel at the initial civil contempt hearing). Thomas further argued (with Justice Antonin Scalia
Antonin Scalia
Antonin Gregory Scalia is an American jurist who serves as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. As the longest-serving justice on the Court, Scalia is the Senior Associate Justice...
, but not Chief Justice John G. Roberts or Samuel Alito
Samuel Alito
Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr. is an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. He was nominated by President George W. Bush and has served on the court since January 31, 2006....
joining) that the majority opinion did not consider the effects of this decision with respect to child support payments, and expressed concern that the majority opinion would undermine state efforts to collect child support payments.
External links
- Turner v. Price coverage by SCOTUSblogSCOTUSblogSCOTUSblog is a law blog written by lawyers and law students about the Supreme Court of the United States . The blog is sponsored by Bloomberg Law. The blog's first post occurred October 1, 2002. The blog moved to its current address on February 7, 2005. In the same year, it was featured by...
- http://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/10-00010qp.pdf