By Devan Cole and John Fritze, CNN
(CNN) — Current court docket orders slowing down or indefinitely blocking President Donald Trump’s coverage blitz have raised the specter that the chief department may overtly flout the federal judiciary and prompted questions on how judges would reply.
Any determination by the administration to defy federal courts would instantly implicate profound constitutional questions on separation of powers which have stored every department of the federal government in test for hundreds of years. That’s largely as a result of it could take a look at the ability of courts to implement rulings which can be imagined to be the ultimate phrase.
Authorized specialists say there are few choices to drive compliance with its pronouncements. Judges may maintain an company or official in civil or felony contempt – however that’s about it.
Fears that the Trump administration may intentionally break right into a sample of not following judicial rulings with which it disagrees had been amplified earlier this week when a federal decide in Rhode Island, for the second time, advised the Trump administration it may possibly’t minimize off grant and mortgage funds after Democratic-led states complained that the administration wasn’t obeying the decide’s earlier court docket order.
A day earlier, Vice President JD Vance additionally created a storm of criticism when he questioned in a submit on X whether or not courts can block any of Trump’s agenda. “Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power,” he wrote partially.
To make certain, such discuss in the meanwhile is simply that, discuss. And in the meanwhile, the Justice Division has taken the same old method of interesting to the next court docket on preliminary injunctions which have blocked varied government actions.
Requested on the White Home on Tuesday whether or not he’ll adjust to court docket rulings, Trump stated that he’ll.
“Well, I always abide by the courts, and then I’ll have to appeal it – but then what he’s done is he’s slowed down the momentum, and it gives crooked people more time to cover up the books,” Trump stated. “So yeah, the answer is I always abide by the courts, always abide by them. And we’ll appeal, but appeals take a long time.”
The probably response by a court docket if the administration had been to defy its edict can be to carry the company appearing in defiance of an order or ruling in civil contempt, which might permit a decide to levy fines on the federal government for its non-compliance, specialists advised CNN.
“So you fine whoever the relevant defendant is, whether it’s secretary of the Treasury or some other official, and the fines escalate (as the non-compliance continues),” stated Michael Dorf, a constitutional regulation professor at Cornell Regulation Faculty.
However the problem with that, Dorf added, is that the company or official may also ignore the imposed fines.
“If they’ve been willing to defy the order in the first place, they might be willing to defy the sanctions order,” he stated.
Different formal sanctions by a court docket, although grounded in a deep historical past, additionally include a number of potential issues when utilized to the chief department. Ought to a decide resolve to pursue felony contempt, for example, it could must be initiated by the Justice Division – which means it’s extremely unlikely given the president’s management over that division. The US Marshals Service, which enforces federal court docket orders, can also be a part of the Division of Justice.
“Judges are very leery of using that – and maybe appropriately so – because it’s such a hammer. The threat of sending somebody to jail is sort of a last resort,” stated Carl Tobias, a constitutional regulation professor on the College of Richmond Faculty of Regulation.
Judges holding authorities entities or officers in contempt will not be unparalleled. In 2021, US District Decide Royce Lamberth in Washington, DC, held the town’s jail in civil contempt however didn’t impose any sanctions. The decide, an appointee of former President Ronald Reagan, as an alternative referred the jail to the Justice Division for potential civil rights violations after it didn’t get remedy for a US Capitol rioter who wanted surgical procedure.
And presidents not complying with court docket orders, whereas novel, can also be not unprecedented. Then-President Richard Nixon famously defied a court docket order to show over White Home tape recordings through the Watergate investigation. He in the end did, however solely after the Supreme Court docket dominated that he wanted at hand them in.
Punishment could possibly be political, not authorized
David Cole, a Georgetown Regulation professor who has repeatedly argued circumstances earlier than the Supreme Court docket on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union, predicted that the probably penalty a president would face for defying a court docket order can be political – not authorized.
“The response,” Cole predicted, “would be to punish the Republican Party.”
However Cole famous that in Trump’s first time period, the White Home steadily misplaced main authorized disputes, complained loudly in regards to the decide who issued them after which did what each earlier administration has completed after dropping: attraction.
Regardless of “a lot of norm-breaking,” Cole stated he believed individuals are overreading Vance’s submit on X and different previous statements.
“If the president were to defy an order, it would cause a political firestorm,” Cole stated. “And he knows that, and he’s therefore very unlikely to do it.”
Dorf stated that the distinction between how the Trump administration responded to antagonistic court docket rulings through the first time period and now’s “the complete acquiescence of congressional Republicans to Trump.”
That assist, he stated, forecloses the likelihood that Congress may use its impeachment energy to punish Trump or others for potential non-compliance with a court docket order.
Some Republicans this week have defended the position of the federal judiciary or pushed again on the concept the White Home may defy rulings hamstringing Trump’s agenda.
Amongst them is Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy, a Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, who stated that he helps the “legitimacy of the federal judiciary” and the judicial course of.
“I’ve disagreed with opinions before,” he stated. “That’s why God made courts of appeal. That’s why God made the US Supreme Court.”
CNN’s Katelyn Polantz contributed to this report.
The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2025 Cable Information Community, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Firm. All rights reserved.
