⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The D.C. Circuit hears United States versus Daniel Kingery. Kingery was living in an encampment in Washington's McPherson Square when authorities cleared the park in 2023. He opposed the clearance and said he would not leave voluntarily; that dispute eventually led to federal park-regulation charges. During a later remote proceeding scheduled for trial on those tickets, he appeared by telephone and represented himself. He insisted on a jury trial and disconnected rather than proceed before the magistrate judge alone. That disconnection became the basis of a separate criminal contempt charge, not just the fact that he had criticized the judge. The same magistrate later convicted him of both the park offenses and contempt, with time-served sentences after nineteen days in custody. Kingery will challenge the absence of a jury, while acknowledging Supreme Court precedent that denies jury trials for petty offenses. A central question is whether participating by telephone puts him in the presence of the court for the federal contempt statute. He will also dispute the authority to conduct the remote proceeding and argue that the contempt case should have gone to a different judge. The government will argue that an ongoing virtual hearing is still a real court proceeding, and that hanging up can obstruct it. Listen for the distinction between a judge's power to maintain order, and the limits that criminal procedure places on punishing contempt.

United States v. Daniel Kingery (No. 25-3118) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued November 12, 2026.