Judicial Vigilantism: Inherent Judicial Authority to Appoint Contempt Prosecutors in Young v. United States Ex Rel Vuitton Et Fils S.A.

31 Pages Posted: 10 Aug 2011

See all articles by Neal Devins

Neal Devins

affiliation not provided to SSRN

Steven J. Mulroy

University of Memphis - Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law

Date Written: August 10, 2011

Abstract

The authors discuss and criticize a Supreme Court case holding that federal courts have the inherent power to appoint a special contempt prosecutor and oversee the criminal contempt prosecution of parties who have failed to comply with their orders. Such authority violates the separation of powers, they argue. Among other things, it usurps the executive’s power of prosecutorial discretion, which also serves as a crucial protection for the accused.

Suggested Citation

Devins, Neal and Mulroy, Steven J., Judicial Vigilantism: Inherent Judicial Authority to Appoint Contempt Prosecutors in Young v. United States Ex Rel Vuitton Et Fils S.A. (August 10, 2011). Kentucky Law Journal, Vol. 76, p. 861, 1988; University of Memphis Legal Studies Research Paper No. 102. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1907876

Neal Devins

affiliation not provided to SSRN

Steven J. Mulroy (Contact Author)

University of Memphis - Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law ( email )

One North Front Street
Memphis, TN 38103-2189
United States

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
25
Abstract Views
354
PlumX Metrics
!

Under construction: SSRN citations while be offline until July when we will launch a brand new and improved citations service, check here for more details.

For more information