In the 1986 case Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a court-appointed prosecutor in a contempt action must be disinterested and impartial, not someone with ties to any party involved in the original litigation. The case arose when Louis Vuitton sued several parties for trademark infringement; after they were found guilty, it was discovered they continued their illegal activities despite an injunction against them. The District Court appointed attorneys from Louis Vuitton's law firm as prosecutors for contempt proceedings against these defendants - this appointment was challenged on appeal due to potential conflict of interest issues. In its decision, the Supreme Court held that appointing interested parties as prosecutors undermines public confidence in judicial neutrality and creates unnecessary opportunities for bias or conflicts of interest.

In the dissenting opinion of Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., Justice Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices White and Powell, argued that the majority's decision to allow a party in a case to appoint its own prosecutor was an unprecedented expansion of judicial power that violated principles of separation of powers. They contended that this ruling allowed judges to bypass the executive branch’s prosecutorial discretion, which is constitutionally protected under Article II. The dissenters also expressed concern about potential conflicts of interest when private parties are given prosecutorial authority because they may prioritize their own interests over those of justice or public welfare.