Pourquoi la cour suprême peut emprisonner les gens qui ne suivent pas les décisions de justice ?
Article III – The Judiciary

Article III describes the court system (the judicial branch), including the Supreme Court. The article describes the kinds of cases the court takes as original jurisdiction. Congress can create lower courts and an appeals process and enacts law defining crimes and punishments. Article Three also protects the right to trial by jury in all criminal cases, and defines the crime of treason.

Section 1 vests the judicial power of the United States in federal courts and, with it, the authority to interpret and apply the law to a particular case. Also included is the power to punish, sentence, and direct future action to resolve conflicts. The Constitution outlines the U.S. judicial system. In the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress began to fill in details. Currently, Title 28 of the U.S. Code describes judicial powers and administration.

As of the First Congress, the Supreme Court justices rode circuit to sit as panels to hear appeals from the district courts. In 1891, Congress enacted a new system. District courts would have original jurisdiction. Intermediate appellate courts (circuit courts) with exclusive jurisdiction heard regional appeals before consideration by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court holds discretionary jurisdiction, meaning that it does not have to hear every case that is brought to it.

To enforce judicial decisions, the Constitution grants federal courts both criminal contempt and civil contempt powers. Other implied powers include injunctive relief and the habeas corpus remedy. The Court may imprison for contumacy, bad-faith litigation, and failure to obey a writ of mandamus. Judicial power includes that granted by Acts of Congress for rules of law and punishment. Judicial power also extends to areas not covered by statute. Generally, federal courts cannot interrupt state court proceedings.

Clause 1 of Section 2 authorizes the federal courts to hear actual cases and controversies only. Their judicial power does not extend to cases that are hypothetical, or which are proscribed due to standing, mootness, or ripeness issues. Generally, a case or controversy requires the presence of adverse parties who have some interest genuinely at stake in the case.

Clause 2 of Section 2 provides that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in cases involving ambassadors, ministers, and consuls, for all cases respecting foreign nation-states, and also in those controversies which are subject to federal judicial power because at least one state is a party. Cases arising under the laws of the United States and its treaties come under the jurisdiction of federal courts. Cases under international maritime law and conflicting land grants of different states come under federal courts. Cases between U.S. citizens in different states, and cases between U.S. citizens and foreign states and their citizens, come under federal jurisdiction. The trials will be in the state where the crime was committed.

No part of the Constitution expressly authorizes judicial review, but the Framers did contemplate the idea, and precedent has since established that the courts could exercise judicial review over the actions of Congress or the executive branch. Two conflicting federal laws are under "pendent" jurisdiction if one presents a strict constitutional issue. Federal court jurisdiction is rare when a state legislature enacts something as under federal jurisdiction. To establish a federal system of national law, considerable effort goes into developing a spirit of comity between federal government and states. By the doctrine of ' Res judicata ', federal courts give "full faith and credit" to State Courts. The Supreme Court will decide Constitutional issues of state law only on a case-by-case basis, and only by strict Constitutional necessity, independent of state legislators' motives, their policy outcomes or its national wisdom.

Section 3 bars Congress from changing or modifying Federal law on treason by simple majority statute. This section also defines treason as an overt act of making war or materially helping those at war with the United States. Accusations must be corroborated by at least two witnesses. Congress is a political body, and political disagreements routinely encountered should never be considered as treason. This allows for nonviolent resistance to the government because opposition is not a life or death proposition. However, Congress does provide for other lesser subversive crimes, such as conspiracy.
Contraintes

La Cour suprême ne peut pas faire appliquer directement ses décisions ; elle dépend plutôt du respect de la Constitution et de la loi pour que ses jugements soient suivis. Un exemple notable de non-acquiescement s'est produit en 1832, lorsque l'État de Géorgie a ignoré la décision de la Cour suprême dans l'affaire Worcester c. Géorgie. Le président Andrew Jackson, qui s'était rangé du côté des tribunaux de Géorgie, aurait déclaré : « John Marshall a rendu sa décision ; à lui de l'appliquer ! ». Certains gouvernements des États du Sud ont également résisté à la déségrégation des écoles publiques après le jugement de 1954, Brown c. Conseil d'éducation. Plus récemment, beaucoup craignaient que le président Nixon refuse de se conformer à l'ordre de la Cour dans l'affaire États-Unis c. Nixon (1974) de remettre les bandes de Watergate. Nixon a finalement respecté la décision de la Cour suprême.
### Query ###
Pourquoi la cour suprême peut emprisonner les gens qui ne suivent pas les décisions de justice ?

### Main Text ###
Article III – The Judiciary

Article III describes the court system (the judicial branch), including the Supreme Court. The article describes the kinds of cases the court takes as original jurisdiction. Congress can create lower courts and an appeals process and enacts law defining crimes and punishments. Article Three also protects the right to trial by jury in all criminal cases, and defines the crime of treason.

Section 1 vests the judicial power of the United States in federal courts and, with it, the authority to interpret and apply the law to a particular case. Also included is the power to punish, sentence, and direct future action to resolve conflicts. The Constitution outlines the U.S. judicial system. In the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress began to fill in details. Currently, Title 28 of the U.S. Code describes judicial powers and administration.

As of the First Congress, the Supreme Court justices rode circuit to sit as panels to hear appeals from the district courts. In 1891, Congress enacted a new system. District courts would have original jurisdiction. Intermediate appellate courts (circuit courts) with exclusive jurisdiction heard regional appeals before consideration by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court holds discretionary jurisdiction, meaning that it does not have to hear every case that is brought to it.

To enforce judicial decisions, the Constitution grants federal courts both criminal contempt and civil contempt powers. Other implied powers include injunctive relief and the habeas corpus remedy. The Court may imprison for contumacy, bad-faith litigation, and failure to obey a writ of mandamus. Judicial power includes that granted by Acts of Congress for rules of law and punishment. Judicial power also extends to areas not covered by statute. Generally, federal courts cannot interrupt state court proceedings.

Clause 1 of Section 2 authorizes the federal courts to hear actual cases and controversies only. Their judicial power does not extend to cases that are hypothetical, or which are proscribed due to standing, mootness, or ripeness issues. Generally, a case or controversy requires the presence of adverse parties who have some interest genuinely at stake in the case.

Clause 2 of Section 2 provides that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in cases involving ambassadors, ministers, and consuls, for all cases respecting foreign nation-states, and also in those controversies which are subject to federal judicial power because at least one state is a party. Cases arising under the laws of the United States and its treaties come under the jurisdiction of federal courts. Cases under international maritime law and conflicting land grants of different states come under federal courts. Cases between U.S. citizens in different states, and cases between U.S. citizens and foreign states and their citizens, come under federal jurisdiction. The trials will be in the state where the crime was committed.

No part of the Constitution expressly authorizes judicial review, but the Framers did contemplate the idea, and precedent has since established that the courts could exercise judicial review over the actions of Congress or the executive branch. Two conflicting federal laws are under "pendent" jurisdiction if one presents a strict constitutional issue. Federal court jurisdiction is rare when a state legislature enacts something as under federal jurisdiction. To establish a federal system of national law, considerable effort goes into developing a spirit of comity between federal government and states. By the doctrine of ' Res judicata ', federal courts give "full faith and credit" to State Courts. The Supreme Court will decide Constitutional issues of state law only on a case-by-case basis, and only by strict Constitutional necessity, independent of state legislators' motives, their policy outcomes or its national wisdom.

Section 3 bars Congress from changing or modifying Federal law on treason by simple majority statute. This section also defines treason as an overt act of making war or materially helping those at war with the United States. Accusations must be corroborated by at least two witnesses. Congress is a political body, and political disagreements routinely encountered should never be considered as treason. This allows for nonviolent resistance to the government because opposition is not a life or death proposition. However, Congress does provide for other lesser subversive crimes, such as conspiracy.

### Supplementary Text ###
Contraintes

La Cour suprême ne peut pas faire appliquer directement ses décisions ; elle dépend plutôt du respect de la Constitution et de la loi pour que ses jugements soient suivis. Un exemple notable de non-acquiescement s'est produit en 1832, lorsque l'État de Géorgie a ignoré la décision de la Cour suprême dans l'affaire Worcester c. Géorgie. Le président Andrew Jackson, qui s'était rangé du côté des tribunaux de Géorgie, aurait déclaré : « John Marshall a rendu sa décision ; à lui de l'appliquer ! ». Certains gouvernements des États du Sud ont également résisté à la déségrégation des écoles publiques après le jugement de 1954, Brown c. Conseil d'éducation. Plus récemment, beaucoup craignaient que le président Nixon refuse de se conformer à l'ordre de la Cour dans l'affaire États-Unis c. Nixon (1974) de remettre les bandes de Watergate. Nixon a finalement respecté la décision de la Cour suprême.

### Draft ###

Query: "Pourquoi la cour suprême peut emprisonner les gens qui ne suivent pas les décisions de justice ?"

Translation check: "Why can Supreme Court imprison people who don't follow justice decisions?"

※ Semantic issue: User conflates court decisions with justice decisions. Likely means: why can courts imprison non-compliant parties?

### 1. Authority Source

Core question → Constitutional basis for judicial enforcement power.

Article III, Section 1: "judicial Power of the United States" extends to cases/controversies. Key phrase: "and to all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States."

→ Broader implied powers doctrine. Not explicitly enumerated but constitutionally inherent.

### 2. Enforcement Mechanisms  

Two primary contempt powers:
- Civil contempt: fines, compensatory orders
- Criminal contempt: imprisonment, punitive measures

⟨H≈0.8⟩ The judiciary doesn't police itself directly... subtle dance of constitutional separation but inherent authority to maintain institutional integrity... like asking why courts can cite themselves to precedent... the power emerges from the constitutional text but breathes through centuries of interpretation...

### 3. Specific Imprisonment Grounds

● High confidence: Contempt of court orders
● High confidence: Failure to appear/comply
◐ Partial: Disobedience of lawful orders

Specific scenarios:
- Witness refusal to testify
- Failure to pay court-ordered fines  
- Violation of protective orders
- Obstruction of justice

### 4. Practical Constraints

Physical reality check: Supreme Court limited to cases within its jurisdiction. Can't imprison someone for traffic violation in state court.

Geographic constraint: Federal marshals execute orders. Spatial limitations exist.

Political constraint: Public opinion matters. Mass imprisonment for minor violations → backlash.

∴ Power exists but rarely exercised. Symbolic rather than routine.

### 5. Historical Precedent

Marbury v. Madison (1803): Established judicial review → inherent power to interpret Constitution
Worcester v. Georgia (1832): Supreme Court affirmed tribal sovereignty over state laws
But Jackson ignored ruling... ⚠ enforcement limitations

⟨H≈1.2⟩ The question assumes compliance... but what if compliance itself is the violation? Consider: judge orders witness to reveal state secret... witness goes to jail rather than betray national security... is this "not following decisions" or principled disobedience? The semantic slippage in the query reveals deeper philosophical questions about judicial authority and conscience...

### Synthesis

Supreme Court can imprison non-compliant individuals through:
├─ Constitutional inherent powers
├─ Contempt jurisdiction  
├─ Enforcement of its orders
└─ Maintenance of judicial authority

But: Limited by constitutional boundaries, practical constraints, and political realities.

Key insight: Power exists but is constitutionally bounded and practically restrained. Not absolute judicial supremacy but carefully circumscribed authority.

NB: User's question contains semantic confusion between "justice decisions" (broader moral/legal principles) and specific court orders (enforceable judicial determinations).

Final answer should clarify this distinction while explaining the constitutional basis for judicial enforcement powers.

### Answer###
La Cour suprême américaine peut effectivement emprisonner les personnes qui ne respectent pas ses décisions, mais cela s'inscrit dans le cadre de pouvoirs judiciaires spécifiques décrits dans la Constitution.

L'Article III de la Constitution américaine accorde aux tribunaux fédéraux, y compris la Cour suprême, le pouvoir de punir, de condamner et de donner des instructions pour résoudre les conflits. Ce pouvoir judiciaire s'étend à l'interprétation et l'application de la loi dans des affaires particulières.

La Cour dispose de deux types de pouvoirs de mépris : le mépris civil et le mépris criminel. Elle peut emprisonner pour des motifs spécifiques, notamment le mépris de cour, la mauvaise foi dans les litiges, ou l'échec à exécuter un ordre de contrainte (writ of mandamus). Le pouvoir judiciaire s'étend également aux cas non couverts par les lois statutaires.

Il est important de noter que la Cour suprême ne peut pas faire appliquer directement ses décisions et dépend de la Constitution et de la loi pour que ses jugements soient suivis. Historiquement, certains gouvernements ont résisté à ses décisions, comme l'État de Géorgie en 1832 qui a ignoré une décision concernant les droits des Amérindiens, le président Jackson déclarant : "Marshall a rendu sa décision ; à lui de l'appliquer !"

Cette capacité d'emprisonnement reflète le pouvoir plus large des tribunaux fédéraux à maintenir l'autorité judiciaire et à faire respecter leurs ordonnances, bien que cette puissance soit exercée avec modération et dans des circonstances limitées.