Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

ROBERTSON v. UNITED STATES, EX REL. WATSON

Docket No.: 08-6261
Certiorari Granted: 12/14/2009
Argued: March 31, 2010
Decided: May 24, 2010

Topics:

Article I, Bill of Rights, Bivens action, Double Jeopardy, Due Process, Fourteenth Amendment, Immigration and Naturalization, Miranda, Sixth Amendment, separation of powers

PartyNames: John Robertson v. United States, ex rel. Wykenna Watson
Petitioner: John Robertson
Respondent: United States, ex rel. Wykenna Watson

Court Below: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Citation: 940 A.2d 1050

John Robertson
v.
United States, ex rel. Wykenna Watson
Consideration Limited:

LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION:flOmega WHETHER AN ACTION FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT IN A CONGRESSIONALLY CREATED COURT MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY BE BROUGHT IN THE NAME AND PURSUANT TO THE POWER OF A PRIVATE PERSON, RATHER THAN IN THE NAME AND PURSUANT TO THE POWER OF THE UNITED STATES.

Question Presented:

:flOmega Whether, consistent with this Court's cases and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, an action for criminal contempt in a congressionally created court may be brought in the name and pursuant to the power of a private person, rather than in the name and pursuant to the power of the United States.

Question:

Is an action for criminal contempt in a congressionally created court brought in the name and pursuant to the power of a private person, rather than in the name and pursuant to the power of the United States, constitutional?

ROBERTSON v. UNITED STATES, EX REL. WATSON
ORAL ARGUMENT

March 31, 2010

Holding: dismissed
Vote: 9-0
Opinion By: Per Curiam
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)