Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/10-10.pdf
Page Number: 22.0

2 

TURNER v. ROGERS 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

A 
Under  an  original  understanding  of  the  Constitution,
there is no basis for concluding that the guarantee of due 
process  secures  a  right  to  appointed  counsel  in  civil  con-
tempt  proceedings.    It  certainly  does  not  do  so  to  the  ex-
tent  that  the  Due  Process  Clause  requires  “ ‘that  our 
Government  must  proceed  according  to  the  “law  of  the
land”—that is, according to written constitutional and statu-
tory  provisions.’”    Hamdi  v.  Rumsfeld,  542  U. S.  507,  589 
(2004)  (THOMAS,  J.,  dissenting)  (quoting  In re  Winship, 
397 U. S. 358, 382 (1970) (Black,  J., dissenting)).  No one 
contends  that  South  Carolina  law  entitles  Turner  to  ap-
pointed counsel.  Nor does any federal statute or constitu-
tional  provision  so  provide.    Although  the  Sixth  Amend-
ment secures a right to “the Assistance of Counsel,” it does 
not apply here because civil contempt proceedings are not 
“criminal prosecutions.”  U. S. Const., Amdt. 6; see ante, at 
8.  Moreover,  as  originally  understood,  the  Sixth  Amend-
ment  guaranteed  only  the  “right  to  employ  counsel,  or  to
use volunteered services of counsel”; it did not require the 
court  to  appoint  counsel  in  any  circumstance.  Padilla  v. 
Kentucky, 559 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (SCALIA, J., dissenting) 
(slip  op.,  at  2);  see  also  United  States  v.  Van  Duzee,  140 
U. S. 169, 173 (1891); W. Beaney, The Right to Counsel in 
American  Courts  21–22,  28–29  (1955);  F.  Heller,  The 
Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
110 (1951).

Appointed counsel is also not required in civil contempt
proceedings under a somewhat broader reading of the Due
Process  Clause,  which  takes  it  to  approve  “ ‘[a]  process  of 
law, which is not otherwise forbidden, . . . [that] can show 
the sanction of settled usage.’ ”  Weiss v. United States, 510 
U. S.  163,  197  (1994)  (SCALIA,  J.,  concurring  in  part  and 
concurring  in  judgment)  (quoting  Hurtado  v.  California, 
110 U. S. 516, 528 (1884)).  Despite a long history of courts 
exercising  contempt  authority,  Turner  has  not  identified