In re Debs
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
Bloom v. Illinois displaced In re Debs's rule allowing serious criminal contempt to be tried without a jury. Two narrower limits on Debs are listed below. Its holding that the federal government may seek an injunction to protect interstate commerce and the mails remains intact.
33 later cases cite In re Debs; 33 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on In re Debs?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Abrogated
-
The Supreme Court rejected Debs's rationale for denying a jury trial when serious criminal contempt is at issue.
Bloom v. Illinois · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
Rather, it seems to have been thought that summary power was necessary to preserve the dignity, independence, and effectiveness of the judicial process— “To submit the question of disobedience to another tribunal, be it a jury or another court, would operate to deprive the proceeding of half its efficiency.” In re Debs, 158 U. S. 564, 595 (1895). It is at this point that we do not agree: in our judgment, when serious punishment for contempt is contemplated, rejecting a demand for jury trial cannot be squared with the Constitution or justified by considerations of efficiency or the desirability of vindicating the authority of the court.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Limited
-
The district court confined Debs's government standing rationale to extraordinary circumstances and rejected an injunction suit based on an incidental effect on interstate commerce.
United States v. City of Philadelphia · E.D. Pa. · filed
Rather, I hold that in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, such as those present in Debs, it is the sole province of Congress to decide how the commerce power is to be exercised. Thus, in most circumstances, civil injunctive suits brought by the Attorney General should be allowed only where they are authorized by an express statutory enactment.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The bankruptcy court declined to extend Debs's rule about a court enforcing its own injunction to a nationwide claim under the statutory bankruptcy discharge injunction.
Ajasa v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · E.D.N.Y. Bankruptcy Court · filed
This Court disagrees, for several reasons. Many of the foundational cases upon which Wells Fargo relies, beginning with the Supreme Court’s decision in In re Debs, address injunctions crafted by particular courts to address the particular circumstances of a particular case. ... This setting is far removed indeed from the question of whether a court in one federal judicial district may consider whether the statutory bankruptcy discharge injunction has been violated by a defendant in another federal judicial district.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads In re Debs and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace