In any proceeding for criminal contempt arising under title II, III, IV, V, VI, or VII of this Act, the accused, upon demand therefor, shall be entitled to a trial by jury, which shall conform as near as may be to the practice in criminal cases. Upon conviction, the accused shall not be fined more than $1,000 or imprisoned for more than six months.
This section shall not apply to contempts committed in the presence of the court, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice, nor to the misbehavior, misconduct, or disobedience of any officer of the court in respect to writs, orders, or process of the court. No person shall be convicted of criminal contempt hereunder unless the act or omission constituting such contempt shall have been intentional, as required in other cases of criminal contempt.
Nor shall anything herein be construed to deprive courts of their power, by civil contempt proceedings, without a jury, to secure compliance with or to prevent obstruction of, as distinguished from punishment for violations of, any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of the court in accordance with the prevailing usages of law and equity, including the power of detention.
Notes of Decisions
Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020).
“§2000e–16b(a)(1) (Discriminatory Practices Prohibited) 42 U. S. C. §2000h–2 (Intervention by Attorney General; Denial of Equal Protection on Account of Race, Color, Religion, Sex or National Origin) 42 U.”
United States v. Rapone, Anthony, 131 F.3d 188 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
· cites it 6× “The government did present sufficient evidence to support a conviction of appellant Rapone, but we nonetheless vacate his conviction because we conclude that he was entitled to a trial by jury under 42 U.S.C. § 2000h. I. This case arises out of a class action lawsuit against…”
Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194 (1968).
· cites it 2× “268 , § 1101, 42 U. S. C. § 2000h, provides a right to jury trial in all proceedings for criminal contempt arising under the Act, and limits punishment to a fine of $1,000 or imprisonment for six months.”
United States v. Skrmetti, 605 U.S. 495 (2025).
“The United States intervened under 42 U. S. C. §2000h–2, which authorizes the Federal Government to intervene in a private equal protection suit “if the Attorney General certifies that the case is of general public importance.”
Grant v. Alperovich, 993 F. Supp. 2d 1356 (W.D. Wash. 2014).
· cites it 2× “42 U.S.C. § 2000h In her third amended complaint, Plaintiff asserts a claim under Title XI of the Civil Rights Act.”
United States v. Pyle, 518 F. Supp. 139 (E.D. Pa. 1981).
· cites it 3× “In the alternative, defendants argue that the contempts charged consist of acts in violation of an injunction issued, at least in part, under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, thus giving rise to a right to a jury trial under 42 U.S.C. § 2000h. The Court now turns to these claims.”
Sosa v. Lantz, 660 F. Supp. 2d 283 (D. Conn. 2009).
· cites it 2× “Standards This Court must review any “complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity,” 28 U.”
Richmond Black Police Officers Ass'n v. City of Richmond, 548 F.2d 123 (4th Cir. 1977).
· cites it 3× “” [42 U.S.C. § 2000h] Because of the failure to comply with the “notice” requirements of Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, as heretofore noted, we also hold that the appellants did not have an opportunity to “demand” a trial by jury and therefore could not…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.