## Facts

- Vuitton obtained a permanent federal injunction barring certain defendants from infringing its trademarks.
- After suspecting continued counterfeiting, Vuitton submitted an affidavit describing alleged violations of the injunction.
- The district court found probable cause to believe the injunction had been violated and appointed Vuitton’s own attorneys as special counsel to investigate and prosecute criminal contempt on the Government’s behalf.
- A jury in the Southern District of New York convicted the defendants of criminal contempt or aiding and abetting criminal contempt.
- The Second Circuit affirmed, reasoning that judicial supervision generally prevents misuse of prosecutorial power for civil bargaining advantage.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal district court has authority to appoint private attorneys to prosecute criminal contempt.
2. Whether attorneys for a party that benefits from the underlying court order may be appointed to prosecute criminal contempt for alleged violations of that order.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the convictions (5–4).
- The Court held that federal courts have inherent authority to appoint private counsel to prosecute criminal contempt.
- The Court held that appointing counsel for the beneficiary of the underlying order as contempt prosecutor is impermissible because the contempt prosecutor must be disinterested.
- The Court rejected reliance on trial-judge supervision as a sufficient safeguard, emphasizing that prosecutorial discretion is often exercised outside judicial view.

## Legal Principles

- Federal courts possess inherent authority to initiate and prosecute criminal contempt to vindicate obedience to their orders, including by appointing private attorneys when necessary.
- The contempt power extends to disobedience of court orders whether the conduct occurs in court or outside court; the in-court/out-of-court distinction primarily affects procedure, not the existence of authority.
- A private attorney appointed to prosecute criminal contempt must be as disinterested as a public prosecutor.
- Counsel for a party that stands to benefit from enforcement of the underlying order has a conflict that creates an unacceptable risk of bias and divided loyalties, requiring reversal when such counsel prosecutes the contempt.

## Conclusion

The Court confirmed that federal judges may appoint private counsel to prosecute criminal contempt to enforce judicial orders, but it barred appointing the beneficiary’s own attorneys because criminal contempt prosecutions must be conducted by a disinterested prosecutor to protect fairness and the integrity of the judicial process.


Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787 (1987)