Robertson v. U.S. ex rel. Watson

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
08-6261	D.C. App.	Mar 31, 2010	May 24, 2010	9-0	Per Curiam	OT 2009

Holding: The Court held that it should not have heard the case in the first place, thereby declining to decide whether a private party can bring an action for criminal contempt.

Judgment: Dismissed as Improvidently Granted in a per curiam opinion on May 24, 2010. Chief Justice Roberts dissented, joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Sotomayor.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Per curiam dismissal in criminal contempt case (James Bickford, May 26, 2010)
Plea bargains and private prosecutors (James Bickford, April 2, 2010)
Can a private party bring an action for criminal contempt in an Article I court? (James Bickford, March 31, 2010)

Briefs and Documents

Brief for Petitioner John Robertson
Brief for Respondent Wykenna Watson
Reply Brief for Petitioner John Robertson

Amicus Briefs

Brief for National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner
Brief for Family Law Judges, Practitioners & Scholars in Support of Respondent
Brief for the District of Columbia in Support of Respondent
Brief for the National Crime Victim Law Institute in Support of Respondent
Brief for the Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project and Other Domestic Violence Organizations, Scholars, and Professionals in Support of Respondent
Brief for the United States of America in Support of Respondent

Certiorari-Stage Documents

Petition for certiorari
Brief in opposition
Supplemental brief of the petitioner
Amicus brief of the United States

Unable to load Tweets

Breaking News

Robertson v. U.S. ex rel. Watson

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Briefs and Documents

Merits Briefs

Amicus Briefs

Certiorari-Stage Documents

Justices were not asked to swear under penalty of perjury that they didn’t leak Dobbs

Supreme Court investigators fail to identify who leaked Dobbs opinion

Justices probe global consequences of allowing U.S. prosecutions of companies owned by foreign governments

Court grants review in new batch of cases, including dispute on religious rights of employees