Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431 (2011), is a case that was decided by the United States Supreme Court on June 20, 2011, relating to the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

[4] In a 5–4 decision written by Justice Stephen Breyer, the Court first rejected the claim of mootness by South Carolina, reasoning that the period of Turner's sentence was too short to allow for full adjudication of the sentence prior to expiration and that the likelihood of Turner being subjected to civil contempt proceedings again rendered the claim not moot (distinguishing this case from DeFunis v. Odegaard).

On the merits, Justice Breyer held that a state is under no obligation to provide a public defender to indigent respondents in civil contempt cases, especially if the plaintiff is also not represented by counsel.

However, Justice Breyer noted that the South Carolina courts were under an obligation to provide an alternative procedure to ensure a fair determination of the case.

[6]Justice Breyer went on to reiterate what Due Process requires in lieu of appointment of counsel in civil proceedings: We consequently hold that the Due Process Clause does not automatically require the provision of counsel at civil contempt proceedings to an indigent individual who is subject to a child support order, even if that individual faces incarceration (for up to a year).

After this, courts are then required to make a specific finding in child support contempt cases whether or not the obligor-parent has or had the ability to pay in order to satisfy Due Process.

[8]Justice Clarence Thomas authored a dissenting opinion, arguing that the majority ruled on grounds never raised by the parties during litigation.

[10]The decision in Turner has also provided reasoning to legal commentators who assume that incarceration for nonsupport is a civil punishment and not criminal in nature.

[3] Critiques of the case's holding point to the often devastating and disparate impact of child support enforcement on poor and minority fathers and their families.

[3] Prior to this case, South Carolina established domestic relations courts that increasingly used civil contempt as opposed to criminal statutes to incarcerate debtors.