Turner v. Rogers

Holding: Although the petitioner has already served his sentence and alleges no collateral consequences will follow from the state's action against him the case is not moot because it is capable of repetition while evading review. Next, the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause does not automatically require the state to provide counsel at civil contempt proceedings to an indigent noncustodial parent who is subject to a child support order, even if that individual faces incarceration. In this case, however, the petitioner's incarceration violated due process because he received neither counsel nor the benefit of alternative procedural safeguards that would reduce the risk of an erroneous deprivation of liberty.

Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Stephen Breyer on June 20, 2011. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, which Justice Scalia joined in full and which the Chief Justice and Justice Alito join as to Parts I-B and II.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

• Opinion analysis: No right to lawyer for deadbeat dad (Evan Shultz)
• Further evidence of shift in IFP policy (Kevin Russell)
• Argument preview: Right to counsel for civil contempt cases (Amy Howe)

Briefs and Documents

Merits Briefs

• Brief for Petitioner Michael D. Turner
• Brief of Respondent Rebecca Rogers and Larry E. Price, Sr.
• Reply brief for Petitioner Michael D. Turner

Amicus Briefs

• Brief for the American Bar Association in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the Constitution Project in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for Elizabeth G. Patterson and the South Carolina Appleseed Legal Justice Center in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the Center for Family Policy and Practice in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Brennan Center for Justice, the National Legal Aid & Defender Association, the Southern Center for Human Rights, And the American Civil Liberties Union in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia, the Children's Law Center, DC Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, and the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the United States of America in Support of Reversal
• Brief of Senators Demint, Graham, Johanns and Rubio in Support of Respondents
• Brief of Texas, Alabama, Arizona, Mississippi, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming in Support of Respondent
• Brief for Law Professors Benjamin Barton and Darryl Brown in Support of Respondent

Certiorari-stage documents

• Opinion below (Supreme Court of South Carolina)
• Petition for certiorari (unavailable)
• Brief of Rebecca Price in opposition (unavailable)
• Brief of South Carolina Department of Social Services in opposition (unavailable)
• Amicus brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers et al. (unavailable)
• Amicus brief for the Center for Family Policy and Practice et al. (unavailable)
• Amicus brief of the Constitution Project (unavailable)
• Petitioner's reply (unavailable)