United States v. Shipp
51 L. Ed. 319, 203 U.S. 563, 1906 U.S. LEXIS 1622 (1906)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, and any order it issues to preserve the status quo pending that determination is valid and must be obeyed. Violating such an order constitutes contempt of court, regardless of whether the court ultimately finds it has jurisdiction over the underlying case.
Facts:
- Ed Johnson, a Black man, was convicted of rape in a Tennessee state court and sentenced to death.
- Johnson sought a writ of habeas corpus in federal court, alleging his constitutional rights were violated by an all-white jury and that a mob atmosphere prevented a fair trial and appeal.
- After the federal circuit court denied his petition, Johnson's counsel secured an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted the appeal and issued a stay of execution, ordering that all proceedings against Johnson be halted and that he remain in custody pending the appeal.
- The Sheriff of Hamilton County, Joseph Shipp, received notice of the Supreme Court's stay order.
- Later that evening, the customary guard was withdrawn from the jail where Johnson was being held, leaving only a single night jailer.
- A mob, which allegedly included Sheriff Shipp and his deputies, broke into the jail, forcibly removed Johnson, and lynched him.
Procedural Posture:
- Ed Johnson was convicted of rape and sentenced to death in a criminal court in Hamilton County, Tennessee.
- Johnson filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. Circuit Court.
- The Circuit Court denied the petition but granted a ten-day stay to allow Johnson to prosecute an appeal.
- The U.S. Supreme Court allowed an appeal and issued an order staying all proceedings against Johnson.
- After Johnson was lynched, the Attorney General of the United States filed an information for contempt of court against Sheriff Shipp and others directly in the U.S. Supreme Court.
- The defendants appeared and, as a preliminary matter, challenged the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to punish them for contempt.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does this Court have jurisdiction to punish for contempt individuals who interfered with a pending appeal by murdering the appellant, even if the Court might have ultimately lacked jurisdiction over the underlying appeal itself?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Holmes
Yes. This Court has jurisdiction to punish the contempt because a court has the inherent authority to preserve the subject matter of a case while it determines its own jurisdiction. The Supreme Court alone has the authority to decide whether it has jurisdiction over an appeal properly before it. Until it makes that determination, any orders it issues to preserve existing conditions, such as a stay of execution, are valid and must be obeyed. To allow parties to disregard such an order with impunity based on their own assessment of the court's jurisdiction would undermine the judicial process. The defendants' actions, by murdering the appellant, directly obstructed the Court's appellate process and constituted a contempt of its authority. The Court also rejected the defendants' argument that their sworn denials of involvement were conclusive, holding that when overt acts are alleged, the facts must be ascertained by testimony in the usual way.
Analysis:
This case establishes a crucial principle of judicial authority often referred to as the 'collateral bar rule.' It affirms that a court order, even one that may later be deemed jurisdictionally flawed, must be obeyed until it is vacated or reversed through proper legal channels. The decision powerfully asserts the supremacy of the rule of law over mob violence and the defiance of court mandates by state officials. It ensures that courts can maintain control over their proceedings and protect their ability to render justice without external interference, solidifying the judiciary's power to enforce its own orders as essential to its function.
