Opinion ID: 1437505
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Contempt Power Inherent Judicial Authority

Text: Courts have an inherent contempt authority, ... as a power `necessary to the exercise of all others.' United Mine Workers v. Bagwell, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 114 S.Ct. 2552, 2559, 129 L.Ed.2d 642 (1994). As the United States Supreme Court has stated: That the power to punish for contempts is inherent in all courts, has been many times decided and may be regarded as settled law. It is essential to the administration of justice. The courts of the United States [and Delaware], when called into existence and vested with jurisdiction over any subject, at once became possessed of the power. Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils, S.A., 481 U.S. 787, 795, 107 S.Ct. 2124, 2131, 95 L.Ed.2d 740 (1987) ( Young v. United States ). By virtue of that inherent authority, courts have the power to impose either civil or criminal sanctions for contempt. Id. The relatively broad civil and criminal contempt power, that is inherently vested in the judicial branch of government, has been explained traditionally, as follows: Courts independently must be vested with power to impose silence, respect, and decorum, in their presence, and submission to their lawful mandates, and ... to preserve themselves and their [judicial] officers from ... insults.... United Mine Workers v. Bagwell, ___ U.S. at ___, 114 S.Ct. at 2559 (quoting Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 204, 227, 5 L.Ed. 242 (1821)). The inherent contempt power of the Delaware courts and the breadth of its scope are well established. The General Assembly has provided that no conduct constitutes a crime unless it is made an offense by the Criminal Code or by another law. 11 Del.C. § 202(a). In Section 202(b), however, the General Assembly expressly recognized that subsection (a) did not affect the inherent power of a court to employ any sanction authorized by law for the enforcement of an order or a civil judgment or decree. 11 Del.C. § 202(b) (emphasis added). [3] Thus, independent of contempt as a statutory crime, [4] Delaware courts have the inherent power to impose criminal sanctions for contempt. Although many constitutional criminal procedural protections are required when a court invokes its inherent authority to initiate an action for criminal contempt, those proceedings are not intended to punish conduct prescribed as harmful by the general criminal laws. Young v. United States, 481 U.S. at 800, 107 S.Ct. at 2133-34. Rather, they are designed to serve the limited purpose of vindicating the authority of the court. Id. Consequently, when the court exercises its inherent contempt authority to commence a contempt proceeding that is of a criminal nature, it is not a criminal prosecution. Young v. United States, 481 U.S. at 804, 107 S.Ct. at 2136. [5] The proceeding is for an offense against the court, as an institution of public justice. Id. Accordingly, even a court which has no criminal jurisdiction has the inherent power to impose punishment which is criminal in nature for contempt of its orders, e.g., the Delaware Court of Chancery. See City of Wilmington v. General Teamsters Local Union 326, Del.Supr., 321 A.2d 123 (1974).