United States v. Shipp

Supreme Court of the United States · 1906 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsContemptAppellate jurisdictionHabeas corpuscontempt of courtjurisdiction to determine jurisdictionstatus quo preservationhabeas corpus appeal

Facts

After Johnson was convicted and sentenced to death in Tennessee, he filed a federal habeas petition alleging, among other things, unconstitutional exclusion of Negroes from the grand and petit juries and that fear of mob violence prevented his counsel from seeking procedural protections. The Circuit Court denied relief but remanded him to the sheriff's custody for ten days to allow an appeal, and Justice Harlan then allowed an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ordered that all proceedings against Johnson be stayed and that his custody be retained pending appeal, and the sheriff received telegraphic notice of that order before 6 p.m.; the Chattanooga evening papers also published a full account. The information alleged that despite notice and reason to believe a mob would attack the jail, the sheriff withdrew the customary guard, and a mob broke in, seized Johnson, and hanged him, with the sheriff and others allegedly participating in or abetting the acts as a contempt of the Supreme Court's order.

Issue

Whether the Supreme Court had authority to punish as contempt the alleged violation of its stay and custody order while Johnson's appeal was pending, even if jurisdiction over the underlying habeas appeal was contested. A further issue was whether the defendants' sworn denials conclusively defeated the contempt proceeding and whether the alleged acts, if proved, constituted contempt.

Rule

Even when jurisdiction over the underlying case is disputed, the court that must decide that jurisdiction has authority, from the necessity of the case, to preserve existing conditions and the subject matter pending its decision. Orders entered for that purpose must be obeyed until the court announces judgment declining jurisdiction, and disobedience may be punished as contempt. In a contempt proceeding based on personal presence and overt acts, defendants' sworn answers are not conclusive and the facts may be determined by testimony in the usual way.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A federal court of appeals receives an emergency appeal from a detainee in Phoenix challenging his confinement on federal constitutional grounds. Before deciding whether the appeal is properly within its jurisdiction, the court orders that all local proceedings be paused and that the detainee remain available pending further order; the county jail administrator, after receiving notice, transfers the detainee to a private group that immediately removes him from the state.

If the administrator is later charged with contempt, what is the strongest argument for upholding the contempt proceeding?

Explanation. The majority held that even when jurisdiction over the underlying matter is disputed, the court that must decide that jurisdiction has authority, from necessity, to preserve existing conditions and the subject matter pending its decision. Such preservation orders must be obeyed until the court announces judgment declining jurisdiction, and disobedience may be punished as contempt.