James Clark McReynolds

Name: Craig v. Hecht U S — Opinion of the Court
Author: James Clark McReynolds

Craig v. Hecht U S — Opinion of the Court

Summary

The Craig v. Hecht U.S. Supreme Court case, written by Justice James Clark McReynolds, explores the jurisdictional boundaries of judges in contempt proceedings and the procedural constraints on appellate review. Focused on conflicts among the District Court, Circuit Court of Appeals, and Supreme Court, the opinion considers whether judicial power to impose contempt penalties applies to criticism following a judicial decision, stressing the importance of differentiating between genuine interference with justice and protected free expression.

The case highlights the conflict between judicial self-preservation and the right to appeal, ultimately asserting that contempt measures must strictly support the administration of justice, with higher courts guaranteeing procedural fairness through established review processes.

Quotes from Craig v. Hecht U S — Opinion of the Court (James Clark McReynolds)

James Clark McReynolds, Craig v. Hecht U S — Opinion of the Court

“ That of course a court may and should use as fully as needed, but this, especially if it is to be extended by decisions to which I cannot agree, makes a man judge in matters in which he is likely to have keen personal interest and feeling although neither selfprotection nor the duty of going on with the work requires him to take such a part. It seems to me that the statute on its face plainly limits the jurisdiction of the judge in this class of cases to those where his personal action is necessary in a strict sense in order to enable him to go on with his work. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

James Clark McReynolds, Craig v. Hecht U S — Opinion of the Court

“ The remedy of the judge as an individual is by action or prosecution for libel. If, however, the publication is intended and calculated to obstruct and embarrass the court in a pending proceeding in the matter of the rendition of an impartial verdict, or in the carrying out of its orders and judgment, the court may, and it is its duty to protect the administration of justice by punishment of the offender for contempt. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

James Clark McReynolds, Craig v. Hecht U S — Opinion of the Court

“ If the publication criticizes the judge or court after the matter with which the criticism has to do has been finally adjudicated and the proceedings are ended so that the carrying of the court's judgment cannot be thereby obstructed, the publication is not contempt and cannot be summarily punished by the court however false, malicious or unjust it may be. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

James Clark McReynolds, Craig v. Hecht U S — Opinion of the Court

“ A man cannot be summarily laid by the heels because his words may make publich feeling more unfavorable in case the judge should be asked to act at some later date, any more than he can for exciting public feeling against a judge for what he already has done. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

James Clark McReynolds, Craig v. Hecht U S — Opinion of the Court

“ For we must not confound the power to punish this kind of contempts with the power to overcome and punish disobedience to or defiance of the orders of a court, although unfortunately both are called by the same name. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

James Clark McReynolds, Craig v. Hecht U S — Opinion of the Court

“ That no appeal, whether by writ of error or otherwise, shall hereafter be taken or allowed from any District Court to the existing Circuit Courts, and no appellate jurisdiction shall hereafter be exercised or allowed by said existing Circuit Courts, but all appeals by writ of error or otherwise, from said District Courts shall only be subject to review in the Supreme Court of the United States or in the Circuit Court of Appeals hereby established. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

James Clark McReynolds, Craig v. Hecht U S — Opinion of the Court

“ Neglecting that course, he asked a single judge to review and upset the entire proceedings, and now claims there was no appeal from the favorable order. As tersely stated by Judge Hough:
'There is no new matter in this record attacking jurisdiction; what really happened was that the case was tried over again, and the socalled writ was no more than a device for obtaining a new trial.'
The course taken indicates studied purpose to escape review of either proceeding by an appellate court. Petitioner may not complain of unfortunate consequences to himself. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

James Clark McReynolds, Craig v. Hecht U S — Opinion of the Court

“ Having heard the evidence, given the matter prolonged consideration and offered the accused opportunity to retract, on February 24, 1921-some fifteen months after the offense-Judge Mayer, holding the District Court, sentenced petitioner to jail for 60 days and committed him to the custody of the United States marshal. Immediately, without making any effort to appeal, Craig presented his verified petition, addressed 'To the Honrable Martin T. Manton, Circuit Judge of the United States,' asking for a writ of habeas corpus and final discharge. ”

James Clark McReynolds

Summary

Quotes from Craig v. Hecht U S — Opinion of the Court (James Clark McReynolds)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature