thepowerandlimitsofthecourts.docVIP

The Power and Limits of the Courts. Rule. A federal district court has power to punish for contempt a person who violates its order even though that person is not a party to the original suit. United States v. Hall. 5th Cir. 1972. Facts: A federal district court issued an interim ex parte (a proceeding commenced by one party without providing any opposing parties with notice or which is uncontested by an adverse party) order restraining unauthorized persons from entering school grounds. The court served notice on Hall who then went on the grounds to violate the order. Hall was not a party to the segregation suit. Holding and Rationale: Hall’s activities threatened the rights of the parties as determined in the desegregation suit, which established the original plaintiffs’ constitutional right to go to a desegregated school. The activities of those adding to racial disorder, which was Hall’s goal by going on school grounds, hindered the court’s power to make a binding decision between the parties before it. Due to their nature, school desegregation orders often create excitement, and like in rem orders (an action against property), are vulnerable to disruption by unidentifiable people like Hall, who are not parties. FRCP 65 (d): A literal reading of Rule 65(d) forbids federal courts to issue in rem type injunctions against persons not parties to a suit. But federal courts continue to issue such injunctions because they possessed the power to do so at common law. Rule 65(d) was intended to embody rather than limit their common law powers. The court views Rule 65(d) as a codification rather than a limitation of the court’s common law powers. The district court, in effect, adjudicated the rights of the whole community with respect to the school controversy. Courts are not free to issue permanent injunctions against all in the world in school cases. Hall had notice of the court order. The portion of the court’s order complained about here may be charac