What Is Contempt of Court? — In Plain Words

This page is general information only. It is not legal advice.

Contempt of court is disobedience or disrespect toward the court, or interference with the court's orderly process.

This page gives the definition only. It states what contempt of court is, the two kinds named in the federal sources, who holds the power, and the penalties the federal statute names.

Scope: state courts have their own contempt rules, and this page covers the federal meaning only.

This page does not describe hearings, motions, responses, or appeals, and it does not give advice for any person facing a contempt charge.

The short answer

The U.S. Department of Justice, in its Criminal Resource Manual at 752, “General Definition of Contempt,” defines it this way: “Contempt of court is an act of disobedience or disrespect towards the judicial branch of the government, or an interference with its orderly process.”

That entry adds: “It is an offense against a court of justice or a person to whom the judicial functions of the sovereignty have been delegated.”

In plain words: not obeying the court, showing disrespect to the court, or getting in the way of the court's orderly work.

A note on the glossary: the U.S. Courts Glossary of Legal Terms, read in full for this page, has no separate entry headed “contempt” or “contempt of court.” This page therefore does not quote a glossary definition of contempt, because there is none in that glossary to quote. The glossary entries this page does use are printed below, word for word.

Plain words for the parts

The U.S. Courts glossary defines “court” as a “Government entity presided over by judges and authorized by statute to resolve legal disputes.”

It defines a “writ” as “A written command or order, issued by the court, requiring the performance of a specific act.”

It defines a “sanction” as “A penalty or other type of enforcement used to bring about compliance with the law or with rules and regulations.”

The federal power: 18 U.S.C. § 401

The Department of Justice entry states: “The power of a federal court to punish a contempt of its authority is limited by Title 18, United States Code, Section 401” to the three items in that section.

Section 401, “Power of court,” states in full: “A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as—”

• “(1) Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice;”
• “(2) Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions;”
• “(3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.”

In plain words, as the statute lists them: misbehavior in or near the court that obstructs the administration of justice; misbehavior of the court's own officers in their official transactions; and disobedience or resistance to a lawful court order or command.

Who decides

As § 401 states it, the power belongs to “a court of the United States,” and the punishment is “at its discretion.”

The Constitution Annotated essay “Inherent Powers Over Contempt and Sanctions,” on Congress.gov, states: “The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that federal courts possess inherent authority to punish contempt—i.e., disobedience of a court order or obstruction of justice—and to impose other sanctions on parties or attorneys who engage in misconduct.”

So, as these sources state it, contempt is decided and punished by the court itself.

The two kinds: civil and criminal contempt

A United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit opinion states: “Contempt comes in two varieties, civil and criminal.”

It states: “The distinction between civil and criminal contempt lies in the purpose of the court's mandate.”

On the civil kind, that opinion states: “Civil contempt sanctions are designed to enforce compliance with court orders and to compensate injured parties for losses sustained.”

The Department of Justice, in its Criminal Resource Manual at 754, “Criminal Versus Civil Contempt,” states the same purpose this way: “civil contempt sanctions--which are designed to compel future compliance with a court order--are coercive and avoidable through obedience.”

In plain words for the civil kind, as those sources state it: the point is to get the order obeyed, or to compensate a party who was harmed, and the sanction is avoidable through obedience.

On the criminal kind, the Sixth Circuit opinion states: “Criminal contempt sanctions . . . are imposed to vindicate the authority of the court by punishing past acts of disobedience.”

The Department of Justice entry at 754 also states, quoting Bloom v. Illinois: “Criminal contempt is a crime in the ordinary sense.”

In plain words for the criminal kind, as those sources state it: the point is to punish disobedience that has already happened, to vindicate the authority of the court.

The penalties the statute names

Section 401 names the penalties in its own words: a court of the United States has power “to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion.”

Section 401, as printed in the source read for this page, states no dollar amount and no length of imprisonment. Where § 401 speaks of penalties, it uses only the words printed above: “fine or imprisonment, or both.”

Related reading

Related reading in this series: “summons vs. subpoena” is a different topic, covered on its own glossary page in this series.

What this page does not do

This page states the federal definition of contempt of court, as the federal sources listed below state it.

It does not state any state's contempt rules.

It does not describe how a contempt case is brought, heard, answered, purged, or appealed.

It does not give advice for any one person's case or charge.

This page is general information only. It is not legal advice.