InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

International Union, United Mine Workers of America, et al. v. John L. Bagwell et al.

The United States Supreme Court held that a fine for contempt that could not be purged by compliance with the order of the court was a criminal contempt, and it could not be assessed without a jury trial.

512 U.S. 821 · No. 92-1625 · 1993 term · Rehnquist Court

Decided Jun 30, 1994 · argued Nov 29, 1993

Criminal procedure · Contempt of court or congress

Majority opinion: Harry Blackmun

The voteMajority

9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent

No dissent (9–0)

Reversed. International Union, United Mine Workers of America, et al. won.

What this ruling means

Reversed: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Virginia Supreme Court, and its own ruling ends the case.

International Union, United Mine Workers of America, et al. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821 (1994), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a fine for contempt that could not be purged by compliance with the order of the court was a criminal contempt, and it could not be assessed without a jury trial.

Read the full article on Wikipedia

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1993 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianStevensBlackmunSouterGinsburgKennedyO'ConnorRehnquistScaliaThomas

Majority(9)

Dissent(0)

  • None.
Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
International Union, United Mine Workers of America, et al.Union, labor organization, or official
Respondent
John L. Bagwell et al.Court or judicial district (Virginia)
Reached the Court by
Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Decided by
Federal common law
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Jun 30, 1994DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: reversed. International Union, United Mine Workers of America, et al. won.
  2. Nov 29, 1993ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the Virginia Supreme Court: reversed.
  5. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Virginia trial court.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

33 other argued cases since 1946 on contempt of court or congress, newest first.

  1. Michael D. Turner, Petitioner v. Rebecca L. Rogers et al.564 U.S. 431Jun 20, 2011 · 564 U.S. 431Criminal procedure5–45–4 band

  2. John Robertson v. United States ex rel. Wykenna Watson560 U.S. 272May 24, 2010 · 560 U.S. 272Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
  3. Hicks, District Attorney for County of Orange, California, Acting on Behalf of Feiock v. Feiock485 U.S. 624Apr 27, 1988 · 485 U.S. 624Criminal procedure5–36–3 band
  4. United States v. Wilson et al.421 U.S. 309May 19, 1975 · 421 U.S. 309Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
  5. Maness v. Meyers, Judge419 U.S. 449Jan 15, 1975 · 419 U.S. 449Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
  6. Codispoti et al. v. Pennsylvania418 U.S. 506Jun 26, 1974 · 418 U.S. 506Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
  7. Johnson v. Mississippi403 U.S. 212Jun 7, 1971 · 403 U.S. 212Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
  8. Mayberry v. Pennsylvania400 U.S. 455Jan 20, 1971 · 400 U.S. 455Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
  9. In re Spencer397 U.S. 817May 4, 1970 · 397 U.S. 817Criminal procedure4–45–4 band
  10. Frank v. United States395 U.S. 147May 19, 1969 · 395 U.S. 147Criminal procedure5–36–3 band
  11. Bloom v. Illinois391 U.S. 194May 20, 1968 · 391 U.S. 194Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
  12. Cheff v. Schnackenberg, U.S. Circuit Judge, et al.384 U.S. 373Jun 6, 1966 · 384 U.S. 373Criminal procedure6–27–2 band

  13. Shillitani v. United States384 U.S. 364Jun 6, 1966 · 384 U.S. 364Criminal procedure7–18–1 band
  14. Harris v. United States382 U.S. 162Dec 6, 1965 · 382 U.S. 162Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
  15. United States v. Barnett et al.376 U.S. 681Apr 6, 1964 · 376 U.S. 681Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
  16. Ungar v. Sarafite, Judge of the Court of General Sessions of the County of New York376 U.S. 575Mar 30, 1964 · 376 U.S. 575Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
  17. In re McConnell370 U.S. 230Jun 18, 1962 · 370 U.S. 230Criminal procedure5–27–2 band
  18. Levine v. United States362 U.S. 610May 23, 1960 · 362 U.S. 610Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
  19. Brown v. United States359 U.S. 41Mar 9, 1959 · 359 U.S. 41Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
  20. Green et al. v. United States356 U.S. 165Mar 31, 1958 · 356 U.S. 165Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
  21. Yates v. United States355 U.S. 66Nov 25, 1957 · 355 U.S. 66Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
  22. Nilva v. United States352 U.S. 385Feb 25, 1957 · 352 U.S. 385Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
  23. Cammer v. United States350 U.S. 399Mar 12, 1956 · 350 U.S. 399Criminal procedure8–0Unanimous band
  24. Courtney et al. v. Schroeder.348 U.S. 933Feb 7, 1955 · 348 U.S. 933Criminal procedure8–0Unanimous band
  25. National Union of Marine Cooks and Stewards v. Arnold et al.348 U.S. 37Nov 22, 1954 · 348 U.S. 37Criminal procedure6–27–2 band
  26. Offutt v. United States348 U.S. 11Nov 8, 1954 · 348 U.S. 11Criminal procedure5–36–3 band
  27. Sacher et al. v. United States343 U.S. 1Mar 10, 1952 · 343 U.S. 1Criminal procedure5–36–3 band

  28. McCOMB, Wage and Hour Administrator, v. Jacksonville Paper Co. et al.336 U.S. 187Feb 14, 1949 · 336 U.S. 187Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
  29. Fisher v. Pace, Sheriff336 U.S. 155Feb 7, 1949 · 336 U.S. 155Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
  30. In Re Oliver333 U.S. 257Mar 8, 1948 · 333 U.S. 257Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
  31. Maggio v. Zeitz, Trustee in Bankruptcy333 U.S. 56Feb 9, 1948 · 333 U.S. 56Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
  32. Penfield Company of California et al. v. Securities & Exchange Commission330 U.S. 585Mar 31, 1947 · 330 U.S. 585Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
  33. United States v. United Mine Workers of America330 U.S. 258Mar 6, 1947 · 330 U.S. 258Criminal procedure5–45–4 band

Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.