## Facts

- Ed Johnson was convicted of rape in a Tennessee state court and sentenced to death.
- Johnson sought federal habeas relief, alleging constitutional violations, including racial exclusion from juries and mob intimidation that prevented effective trial and appellate advocacy.
- A federal circuit court denied habeas relief but temporarily remanded Johnson to the sheriff’s custody to allow time to pursue an appeal.
- An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was allowed, and the Court ordered a stay of all proceedings and directed that Johnson’s custody be retained pending appeal.
- Sheriff John F. Shipp and others received notice of the Supreme Court’s stay order.
- Despite knowledge of the stay and alleged awareness of the risk of mob violence, the information alleged that Shipp and others facilitated a mob’s access to the jail, and Johnson was taken and lynched.
- The United States initiated an original contempt proceeding in the Supreme Court by filing an information charging Shipp and others with contempt for actions intended to defeat the Court’s stay and prevent adjudication of the appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether the Supreme Court may punish contempt for violation of its stay order protecting an appeal, even if it is later argued that the lower federal court or the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction in the underlying habeas matter.
2. Whether state officials and private individuals with notice of a Supreme Court stay can be held in contempt for conduct that frustrates the Court’s order, regardless of the custodian’s state-officer status.
3. Whether alleged contemnors can purge contempt based on personal presence and overt acts merely by swearing they lacked intent to violate the Court’s authority.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court sustained the information and allowed contempt proceedings to go forward.
- The Court held that it alone determines its jurisdiction in cases before it; pending that determination, it may issue binding orders to preserve existing conditions, and willful disregard constitutes contempt.
- The Court held that, after an appeal and stay, persons with knowledge of the order who create or assist a mob to remove and kill the appellant commit contempt of the Supreme Court.
- The Court ruled it was immaterial whether the prisoner’s custodian was a state officer or a custodian holding the prisoner subject to the federal stay.
- The Court held that where contempt consists of personal presence and overt acts, a sworn denial of intent does not, by itself, purge the contempt charge.

## Legal Principles

- The Supreme Court has exclusive authority to decide whether a case is properly before it; until it declines jurisdiction, its protective orders remain binding.
- The Court may issue orders preserving the status quo in aid of its appellate function, and willful violation of such orders is punishable as contempt.
- Contempt may be imposed on state officials and private persons who, with notice of a Supreme Court order, act to defeat it by obstructing custody or destroying the subject of the appeal.
- In contempt proceedings based on overt conduct and personal participation, subjective disavowals of intent are insufficient to terminate the proceeding.
- Contempt proceedings vindicate obedience to law and judicial process rather than personal injury to judges.

## Conclusion

The Court held that its stay orders protecting an appeal must be obeyed unless and until the Court itself rules otherwise, and that persons with notice who act to defeat those orders—through overt conduct such as facilitating a mob killing of the appellant—may be prosecuted for contempt notwithstanding later jurisdictional challenges or after-the-fact denials of intent.


United States v. Shipp, 203 U.S. 563 (1906)