What Courts Can Do If the Trump Administration Defies Court Orders

[Quiet Em]

More than 10 federal courts have temporarily halted or rejected actions by the new Trump administration on issues ranging from spending to birthright citizenship. Dozens more lawsuits against the administration’s early actions are pending. However, statements by top Trump adviser Elon Musk and Vice President JD Vance openly challenging judicial authority have raised the possibility that the administration may ignore court rulings it opposes. Already, one judge has determined that the Trump administration is not taking sufficient action to follow their orders. So, what happens if the government refuses to obey federal court decisions?

As the Supreme Court has explained, it is a “basic proposition that all orders and judgments of courts must be complied with promptly.” Courts can — and often do — step in when their rulings are defied. Here’s an overview of the tools available to federal courts to compel compliance, or punish noncompliance, with their decisions.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/what-courts-can-do-if-trump-administration-defies-court-orders

Good info at the link. I think it's quite obvious the con and pushing us towards a constitutional crisis. We can thank Justice Roberts for that for giving the psycopathic con artist near total immunity.

[Scrivener7]

1. I have some fear that the republicans WILL just run roughshod over these responses. BUT

Mump does tend to fold like a cheap suit when someone comes after him. So maybe it will be enough.

[BadgerKid]

2. It remains to be seen whether, if needed, US marshals or private attorneys will comply

with federal court orders.
Thanks for posting.

[Quiet Em]

4. I searched "if the attorney general of the us violates law and defies court orders can he/she be arrested"

and this came up from Democracy Docket

One of the most alarming developments in the second Trump administration is agencies’ apparent defiance of court orders barring them from implementing illegal executive orders. As agencies including the State Department have ignored, evaded or slow-walked judicial decrees, courts have issued increasingly stronger warnings that compliance with their orders is not optional, and litigants have urged them to hold the responsible government officials in contempt of court.

Courts’ power of contempt — the inherent power to compel compliance with orders and punish actions that obstruct the administration of justice — is ultimately backstopped by their ability to jail people who defy their orders. There’d be no issue if judges themselves made arrests, but the courts’ enforcement arm, the U.S. Marshal’s Service, reports to both the courts and the attorney general. The marshals’ position within the executive branch has led commenters to predict that, if a court orders the arrest of a defiant executive branch official, the White House or Attorney General Pam Bondi will revoke the order and the courts will “run out of options.”

As Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky argues, “the hard truth for those looking to the courts to rein in the Trump administration is that the Constitution gives judges no power to compel compliance with their rulings — it is the executive branch that ultimately enforces judicial orders.”

But do the courts really lack authority to jail contemnors — people who defy court orders — if the marshals go rogue? A close look at the courts’ enforcement powers makes clear that judges don’t need to rely solely on the marshals to ensure their orders are enforced.

https://www.democracydocket.com/opinion/if-the-marshals-go-rogue-courts-have-other-ways-to-enforce-their-orders/

[Baitball Blogger]

3. Important quote from article:

Who do courts rely on to enforce orders?

While federal judges have clear authority to order sanctions, including fines and arrest, they ultimately rely on law enforcement and federal prosecutors to enforce penalties in the face of continued noncompliance. The U.S. Marshals Service, which is part of the Justice Department, is the primary enforcement arm of the federal courts. Courts often rely on marshals to serve summonses, subpoenas, and warrants, as well as make arrests, and by law, “it is the primary role and mission of the United States Marshals Service to . . . obey, execute, and enforce all orders of” the federal courts.

Courts also largely rely on federal prosecutors to pursue findings of criminal contempt. In most cases, the relevant U.S. attorney’s office will accept a criminal contempt case at the request of the court and prosecute it as they would any other alleged violation of criminal law. However, judges are authorized to appoint private attorneys to prosecute criminal contempt charges in the rare instances when the U.S. attorney declines to accept the case. (In 2023, the Supreme Court declined to hear a petition by environmental lawyer Steve Donzinger, who claimed his criminal contempt prosecution by an appointed private attorney was unconstitutional.)

[Ol Janx Spirit]

5. It all seems like whistling past the graveyard. Clearly the Constitution has holes and flaws that

were intended by the authors to be rectified by political means by an informed electorate--albeit in their vision a limited segment of the population--empowered with the ability to change the government through the regular exercise of voting. But things break down rapidly when your concept that the American people would (obviously; duh) not elect a tyrant turns out to be flawed--and the congress is full of tyrant-loving sycophants. This administration is obviously poised to defy court orders and has placed people in power that will refuse to follow the orders of the court to enforce their judgements, and this congress is poised to not only allow it but cheer it on. Therefore we have no rule of law. The only way we "aren't there yet" is because it hasn't actually happened, but does anyone think it won't? The FO phase of this FA exercise is rapidly upon us. The only question now is how does this end? Chief Justice Roberts will have lots of time to write scholarly papers on the subject from his jail cell.

[NJCher]

6. I'll be keeping this link handy

since there is so much misunderstanding about what the court can do. Actually, this is a fine collection of incidents where trump has already tested the waters and suffered repercussions.

Which makes me wonder why you would say this if you read your own article: I think it's quite obvious the con and [is] pushing us towards a constitutional crisis.

One of the most powerful tools the courts have is this:

snip

Penalties can include fines, but judges can also go as far as to suspend or disbar attorneys for their refusal to cooperate.

snip

Here is why: No attorney is going to risk his professional livelihood for dump, and now that dump's support from the SC indeed seems in jeopardy, an attorney will take it even more seriously before proceeding with his squirrely ideas, like claiming that Biden didn't know what he was signing.

Here's what attorneys go through to be attorneys: My neighbor is licensed in the State of NJ. However, because we are in proximity to NYC, he thought it would be good to be licensed in NY, too. So he decided to take the NY Bar. Here's what he had to do:

--go on hiatus from his current employment to study all day for weeks. NY law, which he found out is fairly inapplicable because the exam is based on law from the 1800s! So while he found it interesting, just out of curiosity, he didn't see how he would ever make use of it.

--the exam is given only every six months or so, so all the seats in NYC go to NYC residents. If you're from another area, you have to go to Albany to take the exam, which takes four days. Necessitates nearly a week in a hotel. So in addition to the $1000+ you spend to take the exam, you can now tack on another $1200 for a hotel.

--transportation? He decided to rent a car, since he had a feeling something was wonky on his personal car. Another $800 or so. Maybe more.

So you see, we are now at $3000, not counting the time he didn't get paid from his regular work. I would guess you could easily double that figure and call it a $6000 career enhancement.

Plus the bar exams are hard, and NY is notoriously difficult. JFK, Jr. failed it. Hillary Clinton failed the one in DC. Michelle Obama failed one in Illinois on her first attempt.

Risking your license is not worth it for dump.

In conclusion, he may find it very difficult to get attorneys or even those left in the DOJ to pursue his foolish ideas.

[Quiet Em]

7. One would think so NJCher,

but some attorneys have been disbarred, and others jailed because of the con artist.

There is nothing normal about the con or the lawyers and people he associates with.