Whether the District Court can punish two criminal attorneys for contempt and sanction them $200,000 for using evidence in defense of their client in a state court criminal trial that the District Court has enjoined the use of

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The constitutional issue addressed here is whether the District Court can punish two criminal attorneys for contempt and sanction them $200,000 for using evidence in defense of their client in a state court criminal trial that the District Court has enjoined the use of. More specifically, in a civil case against David Daleiden, the Federal District Court entered a preliminary injunction barring the use of certain videos. Subsequently, a California state criminal action was filed against Mr. Daleiden. As part of their defense of Mr. Daleiden, Petitioners—whom are criminal defense counsel—posted some of the videos to combat the attorney general’s attack on Mr. Daleiden in a public campaign. The District Court held Petitioners in contempt and issued a nearly $200,000 sanction. The Ninth Circuit denied appellate review until final judgment is entered. The Questions Presented Are: 1. Whether due process is violated when a contempt citation/directive did not clearly indicate whether Petitioners were to show cause for civil or criminal contempt? 2. Whether the Younger Abstention Doctrine must apply to these non-party criminal defense attorneys/ petitioners so they can provide effective assistance to their client without being held in contempt in a sovereign court that has no jurisdiction over them? 3. Whether the “fair ground of doubt” standard applies to Petitioners’ belief that a civil preliminary injunction did not apply to them when they disclosed information covered by the injunction in countering a massive public trial by the California State Attorney General that disclosed similar information covered by the same injunction?