Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/10-10.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2010 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued.
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

TURNER v. ROGERS ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

No. 10–10.  Argued March 23, 2011—Decided June 20, 2011 

After  a  South  Carolina  family  court  ordered  petitioner  Turner  to  pay 
$51.73  per  week  to  respondent  Rogers  to  help  support  their  child,
Turner repeatedly failed to pay the amount due and was held in con-
tempt five times.  For the first four, he was sentenced to 90 days’ im-
prisonment, but he ultimately paid what he owed (twice without be-
ing jailed, twice after spending a few days in custody).  The fifth time 
he did not pay but completed a 6-month sentence.  After his release, 
the  family  court  clerk  issued  a  new  “show  cause”  order  against 
Turner  because  he  was  $5728.76  in  arrears.    Both  he  and  Rogers
were  unrepresented  by  counsel  at  his  brief  civil  contempt  hearing. 
The judge found Turner in willful contempt and sentenced him to 12
months in prison without making any finding as to his ability to pay
or  indicating  on  the  contempt  order  form  whether  he  was  able  to
make  support  payments.    After  Turner  completed  his  sentence,  the 
South  Carolina  Supreme  Court  rejected  his  claim  that  the  Federal 
Constitution entitled him to counsel at his contempt hearing, declar-
ing  that  civil  contempt  does  not  require  all  the  constitutional  safe-
guards applicable in criminal contempt proceedings. 

Held: 

1. Even  though  Turner  has completed  his  12-month  sentence,  and 
there  are  not  alleged  to  be  collateral  consequences  of  the  contempt 
determination  that  might  keep  the  dispute  alive,  this  case  is  not
moot,  because  it  is  “capable  of  repetition”  while  “evading  review,” 
Southern  Pac.  Terminal  Co.  v.  Interstate  Commerce  Comm’n,  219 
U. S. 498, 515.  A case remains live if “(1) the challenged action [is] in
its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or ex-
piration,  and  (2)  there  [is]  a  reasonable  expectation  that  the  same
complaining  party  [will]  be  subjected  to  the  same  action  again.” 
Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U. S. 147, 149.  Here, the “challenged ac-