1. This Court has been grappling with the contempt due process requirements when a contemnor removes property from a receiver's control without authorization since the landmark decision in Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418 (1911). The federal circuits are split over whether orders directing flat, unconditional restitution of property to an arm of the court—like a receiver—constitute civil or criminal contempt and, therefore, whether heightened criminal due process protections apply. The Ninth Circuit has held that receiver restitution orders vindicate the court's authority and constitute criminal contempt. The Third Circuit, Fifth Circuit, and now the Nevada Supreme Court hold that receiver restitution orders are compensatory and constitute civil contempt. The first question presented is:

Whether, under due process, an order directing a flat, unconditional restitution payment to a receiver as an arm of the court for withdrawing funds without authorization constitutes civil or criminal contempt.

2. This Court has held that flat, unconditional statutory fines designed to punish for as little as $50 constitute criminal contempt. Still, the Nevada Supreme Court found a "nominal fine" exception to this rule when paid to the complainant instead of the court. The second question presented is:

Whether there is a "nominal fine" exception to the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause's requirements for criminal contempt.

Whether an order directing a flat, unconditional restitution payment to a receiver constitutes civil or criminal contempt under due process