Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/10-10.pdf
Page Number: 12

8 

TURNER v. ROGERS 

Opinion of the Court 

provide no definitive answer to that question.  This Court 
has  long  held  that  the  Sixth  Amendment  grants  an  indi-
gent  defendant  the  right  to  state-appointed  counsel  in 
a  criminal  case.  Gideon  v.  Wainwright,  372  U. S.  335 
(1963).  And  we  have  held  that  this  same  rule  applies  to 
criminal  contempt  proceedings  (other  than  summary
proceedings).  United  States  v.  Dixon,  509  U. S.  688,  696 
(1993); Cooke v. United States, 267 U. S. 517, 537 (1925). 

But  the  Sixth  Amendment  does  not  govern  civil  cases.
Civil  contempt  differs  from  criminal  contempt  in  that  it 
seeks  only  to  “coerc[e]  the  defendant  to  do”  what  a  court
had previously ordered him to do.  Gompers v. Bucks Stove 
& Range Co., 221 U. S. 418, 442 (1911).  A court may not
impose  punishment  “in  a  civil  contempt  proceeding  when 
it  is  clearly  established  that  the  alleged  contemnor  is 
unable  to  comply  with  the  terms  of  the  order.”    Hicks  v. 
Feiock,  485  U. S.  624,  638,  n. 9  (1988).    And  once  a  civil 
contemnor  complies  with  the  underlying  order,  he  is 
purged  of  the  contempt  and  is  free.    Id.,  at  633  (he
“carr[ies]  the  keys  of  [his]  prison  in  [his]  own  pockets” 
(internal quotation marks omitted)).

Consequently,  the  Court  has  made  clear  (in  a  case  not 
involving  the  right  to  counsel)  that,  where  civil  contempt
is  at  issue,  the  Fourteenth  Amendment’s  Due  Process 
Clause  allows  a  State  to  provide  fewer  procedural  protec-
tions than in a criminal case.  Id., at 637–641 (State may 
place the burden of proving inability to pay on the defen-
dant).

This  Court  has  decided  only  a  handful  of  cases  that
more  directly  concern  a  right  to  counsel  in  civil  matters.
And the application of those decisions to the present case
is not clear.  On the one hand, the Court has held that the 
Fourteenth  Amendment  requires  the  State  to  pay  for
representation by counsel in a civil “juvenile delinquency”
proceeding  (which  could  lead  to  incarceration).    In re 
Gault,  387  U. S.  1,  35–42  (1967).    Moreover,  in  Vitek  v.