Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/10-10.pdf
Page Number: 21.0

Cite as:  564 U. S. ____ (2011) 

1 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 10–10 
_________________ 

MICHAEL D. TURNER, PETITIONER v. REBECCA L. 

ROGERS ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF

SOUTH CAROLINA

[June 20, 2011]

 JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA joins, and 
with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICE ALITO join as
to Parts I–B and II, dissenting. 

The  Due  Process  Clause  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment 
does  not  provide  a  right  to  appointed  counsel  for  indi-
gent defendants facing incarceration in civil contempt pro-
ceedings.  Therefore,  I  would  affirm.    Although  the  Court
agrees  that  appointed  counsel  was  not  required  in  this
case,  it  nevertheless  vacates  the  judgment  of  the  South 
Carolina Supreme Court on a different ground, which the
parties  have  never  raised.    Solely  at  the  invitation  of
the  United  States  as  amicus  curiae,  the  majority  decides
that Turner’s contempt proceeding violated due process be- 
cause  it  did  not  include  “alternative  procedural  safe-
guards.”  Ante,  at  15.  Consistent  with  this  Court’s  long-
standing practice, I would not reach that question.1 

I 
The  only  question  raised  in  this  case  is  whether  the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment creates a 
right to appointed counsel for all indigent defendants facing 
incarceration in civil contempt proceedings.  It does not. 
—————— 

1 I  agree  with  the  Court  that  this  case  is  not  moot  because  the  chal-
lenged  action  is  likely  to  recur  yet  is  so  brief  that  it  otherwise  evades 
our review.  Ante, at 5–7.