## Facts

- A federal district court entered an injunction barring Tom G. Sanders, an Oklahoma drug seller, from directly or indirectly introducing or causing the introduction of misbranded drugs into interstate commerce in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), including 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(a) and 352.
- After the injunction, Sanders limited sales to transactions completed at his Oklahoma place of business.
- The United States alleged that Sanders knew some purchasers intended to take the drugs from Oklahoma into other states.
- The United States sought criminal contempt proceedings by applying for an order requiring Sanders to show cause why he should not be prosecuted and punished for violating the injunction.
- Sanders moved to quash the application and asked the court to refuse issuance of any show-cause citation.
- The district court held a hearing limited to the sufficiency of the allegations, took no evidence on guilt, and denied the government’s request for a show-cause order on the ground that the allegations did not state a contempt offense.
- The United States appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court’s denial of a show-cause citation, based solely on insufficiency of the allegations, was appealable by the United States.
2. Whether allegations that Sanders made intrastate sales of misbranded drugs while knowing purchasers would carry them across state lines sufficiently alleged he “introduced or caused to be introduced” the drugs into interstate commerce in violation of the injunction and 21 U.S.C. § 331(a), supporting criminal contempt.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit held the district court did not adjudicate guilt or innocence; it dismissed the contempt charge on the pleadings by finding the allegations legally insufficient.
- The court treated the show-cause application as the functional equivalent of an information charging criminal contempt under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42(b).
- Accepting the pleaded facts as true for sufficiency purposes, the court held the allegations were adequate to charge criminal contempt.
- The judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- An application seeking an order to show cause for criminal contempt functions like an information under Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(b); a court assessing it on the pleadings assumes the alleged facts are true and asks only whether they state an offense.
- A district court order that dismisses a criminal contempt charge for failure to state an offense is an appealable dismissal of a charging instrument.
- Under an FDCA-based injunction barring introducing or causing introduction of misbranded drugs into interstate commerce, a seller may “cause” interstate introduction by completing intrastate sales with knowledge that purchasers will transport the drugs across state lines.
- Where the allegations, if proven, could establish a knowing violation of the injunction’s interstate-commerce prohibition, contempt proceedings should proceed to a factual determination rather than being terminated on the pleadings.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the government’s criminal contempt application, holding that intrastate sales of misbranded drugs made with knowledge that buyers will take them out of state can constitute “causing” introduction into interstate commerce, and that the contempt charge should be tested on evidence rather than rejected as facially insufficient.


United States v. Sanders, 196 F.2d 895 (10th Cir. 1952)