> You can't imprison someone in the U.S. unless that person is reasonably suspected of a crime or has committed one

I didn't say otherwise.

> The code in question allows for such imprisonment - that's why it's called "criminal contempt."

I don't disagree. What I said is that breach of a consent decree is not necessarily a case of criminal contempt. And whether or not it does rise to the level of criminality will be determined by the judge, not the investigators. Therefore, referring to it as a 'criminal investigation' does not make sense if the investigation is strictly investigating breach of a consent decree.

Agreed, but it seems like pointless hair-splitting to me. One could reasonably still call it a criminal investigation even if it leads only to a civil contempt finding. Many situations are investigated as possible crimes even if no activity rising to the level of a crime is found.

Ya, I take your point, but I don't think it really is hair splitting unless one of the following is true:

A) The base rate of consent-decree breaches resulting in a criminal contempt charge is high, which I very much doubt that it is.

B) There is some information about this particular case that makes a criminal contempt charge likely. This could be true, but the article makes no attempt to demonstrate it.

Failing one of these things being true, I don't think it's fair to refer to it, at this stage, as a 'criminal investigation'.