The South Dakota Contempt Case Against The U.S. Marshals Comes To An End
In June, I blogged about an unusual. A U.S. District Court judge held in contempt U.S. Marshals. The dispute, which always seemed murky to me, centered around the Marshal’s refusal to disclose their vaccination status. And the judge required everyone in his courtroom to be vaccinated. As a result, the marshals removed several prisoners from the courtroom, because they were not in compliance with the judge’s policy. The marshals were then held in contempt. The United States refused to prosecute the contempt case. The district court judge appointed a special prosecutor, then recused. The case was then assigned to another district court judge.
On Thursday, the new judge dismissed the case. Here is, I think, a good summary of the case:
The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota made clear to the USMS that the Court, including Judge Kornmann, expected any United States Marshals who appeared in courtrooms in the district to be vaccinated for COVID-19. Despite the Court’s clear and explicit instructions, the USMS for the District of South Dakota provided a U.S. Marshal in Judge Kornmann’s courtroom who refused to state—due to USMS policy or otherwi
Article from Latest – Reason.com