Yes, I’m asking because of the Kim Davis fracas in Rowan County, Kentucky.
Ms. Davis was put in jail for contempt of court when she refused to allow her deputies to issue marriage licenses as a protest against gay marriage. The judge specifically said at the time that he chose jail rather than fines because he did not believe that fines would compel Ms. Davis’s compliance. Many posters have agreed, arguing that any fines imposed would be paid by raising money from her supporters through social media.
Presumably, no one thinks Ms. Davis has the ability to raise infinite funds. A fine of ten million dollars would not be payable by her under any conceivable circumstances, in my opinion. Certainly $100 million would be.
I know that courts have virtually unlimited power to lock people up for civil contempt, as long as the contemnor has the ability to be released by complying with the court’s orders. The longest time served for contempt in the US was a man who refused to turn over $2.5 million to his ex-wife in a divorce. He was eventually released after 14 years when a judge ruled that continued incarceration wouldn’t compel him to turn over the money. (He claimed to have lost it in a bad business deal. The court believed he had hidden it in overseas accounts.)
I also know that in most jurisdictions, the court can issue fines instead of jail. Clearly that was possible in the case of Ms. Davis. Are there limits to the fines a court can issue for contempt? Could Ms. Davis have been fined $1 million per day for refusing to comply? $10 million? What about $1000 for the first day and twice as much for each subsequent day? Could the court order a fine of $1000/day in addition to any amount raised through donations or contributions?
I know the answer will vary by jurisdiction. I’m obviously most interested in Ms. Davis’s case, which is in a federal court in the 6th circuit, but feel free to answer for other jurisdictions, as well. Also, since Ms. Davis was released despite not promising to abide by the court’s order (the court merely found that its order had been complied with in her absence, so she no longer needed to be held), would future violations have to fall under criminal contempt rather than civil? What penalties would apply then?
That being said, you’ll find some more specific limitations depending on the nature of the contempt and the jurisdiction (e.g. up to the duration of the hearing but not more than 18 months max for refusing to testify in a federal matter 28 U.S. Code § 1826 - Recalcitrant witnesses).
What I was wondering about with regard to the Kim Davis situation was not so much the dollars set for bail as the indefinite nature of the sentence. Basically, the judge remanded her to jail until she changed her mind and agreed to issue the licenses. So what happens if she never changes her mind? Does she stay in jail for the rest of her life, maybe 30 or 40 years, for the “crime” of following her conscience? Or is there a limit to the sentence that can be imposed for contempt?
Kim Davis was not jailed for “the ‘crime’ of following her conscience.” She was jailed for not following a court order.
Going back to your question – with some exceptions (there’s a statutory limit of 18 months for civil contempt for refusal to testify in federal courts, for example), federal judges can theoretically place an individual in jail indefinitely until the individual agrees to follow the court order at issue. This makes sense, as civil contempt confinements are not meant as punishment, but are instead meant to force an individual to follow a court order. How else do you propose courts (and society as a whole) should deal with people who refuse to follow court orders? As a society, we have agreed that disagreements should be handled by the court system – if courts have no power to enforce their orders, we’ve just undermined that societal agreement.
Well, it is a court order that is trying to force her to go against her conscience. I’m not saying her conscience is right, but I don’t doubt that it is a sincerely held belief. My question is this: what if, instead of following the court order and issuing same-sex marriage licenses, she simply resigned her position? Would the court accept that and set her free?
Well, you could say the same if a reporter is jailed for refusing to testify about the identity of a source – I’m sure the journalist holds a sincere belief in her journalistic integrity and her promises to the source, but it doesn’t really matter because she is still in contempt of court. The fact is that from a practical perspective, courts need a way to enforce their orders. Just because someone holds a strong and sincere conviction is not (and should not) be enough to overcome the court’s practical need to ensure the legal system functions as intended.
Now, what would happen if Kim Davis resigned? Seeing how contempt of court confinements are meant to coerce individuals to follow specific orders, where Davis to resign, the court no longer would need to enforce its order that Davis issue marriage certificates (because she no longer holds the position of county clerk). The court would then likely release her. Like I said, civil contempt confinements are meant to force people to follow court orders – they’re not punitive.
It sounds like there really is no limit, although higher courts are wary of the potential for abuse. Reading between the lines of the Mine Workers decision, I don’t think a million dollar fine would fly, at least without a jury trial for criminal contempt (and even then it would be hard to justify). But what about an automatically increasing per diem fine like I suggested, starting with a reasonable amount and doubling it for each subsequent day of contumacy? Is there president for that, or for a fine of indefinite amount equal to a fixed amount plus any funds raised from third parties?
Can a judge increase a per diem of the initial amount proves insufficient?
Even if the answer to all those questions is “No,” I can’t see why the judge couldn’t find some appropriate level of fine that would prove coercive. Can anyone explain what the judge was thinking when he said fines wouldn’t work?
Do you believe Kim Davis would have complied with the Judge’s order if she had been fined rather than jailed?
Of course, Davis did not comply even after being jailed. But from a practical perspective, by taking Davis out of the picture, the Judge was able to ensure his order that the county clerk’s office begin issuing marriage certificates. Ultimately, this was the best outcome for the situation.
Holy shit, that’s a tragic story for everyone involved. I can’t believe they allowed that to take place that way. Ok, I can totally believe that. I can’t believe it was legal, though.
Good point. I suppose the real purpose wasn’t to coerce her into issuing the licenses, but to coerce her into not interfering with her deputies’ compliance, which she couldn’t do from behind bars.
I do wonder what would have happened if she’d been assessed a geometrically increasing fine. I think she’d have had to resign once she realized she wouldn’t be able to pay. I can’t see her accepting lifelong poverty just to keep her job.
Yes, if she resigned, the judge would have set her free. She was not orders to issue marriage licences. She was ordered to stop blocking the issuing of marriage licenses. One way she could obey the order to stop blocking the issuing of marriage licenses would be to resign, at which time a local judge would have then taken over the job temporarily in accordance with state law.