In such cases in the U.S., where judicial orders are not heeded, what are the consequences for the executive (and the agencies it controls) and what are the remedies practically available (something that can be put into action) for the judiciary for contempt of court?
To what extent can the executive get away with disobeying judicial orders (without filing appeals)?
If the executive branch is ignoring court orders, the constitution is de facto suspended. It’s in the ‘constitutional crisis’ phase when they’re threatening to ignore the courts. When they’re actually doing it, there is no longer a working constitution.
The remedies are to pray that the US Marshals don’t break their oath to the constitution and are willing to arrest their bosses for contempt of court when the courts order it.
If the leaders of the DOJ commit federal crimes do they just get a pass? Of course not. The marshals must do their jobs and arrest people the courts lawfully order them to, regardless of their title. That’s not a coup, that’s the constitution working normally.
The coup already happened when the executive usurped the judicial branch’s authority.
Something I’ve noticed is that a surprising (to me) number of people I generally think of as “smart” say things like that.
“You can’t arrest your boss” or “if the President is in charge of the executive, why can’t he decide these things?”
And it continues to surprise me. I take these queries in good faith with respect to the people in my life that I know who respond in this way.
But it leaves me wondering how others think the world works. Do people want to live in a world where one branch has unchecked power and may disregard with impunity the checks and balances in our government?
Why shouldn’t and why can’t a rogue President be contained by lawful means? Why shouldn’t the Marshal’s be able to arrest someone at the direction of the court? That’s how it works for everyone else.
It’s by no means an unsettled question as to whether Presidents are accountable to the law and Constitution. They are. Full stop.
Is it just that having a President that actively ignores and breaks laws in plain sight is just so new? How long do we wait for the novelty to wear off?
Of course the functioning of all of this is predicated upon good faith and the absence of an almost complete takeover of the system by bootlickers.
Especially if these are people in your own life instead of randoms on the Internet, it's probably worth revisiting this. A great many people I know in my life saying things like this were spinning a very different yarn when it was Obama, the ACA or his executive orders. Or Biden doing... Well anything. In other words it's not good faith. It's a post-facto rationalization to justify whatever Trump is doing.
It's of course harder to do this exercise for a random stranger on the Internet. It's always possible this person was arguing the same for other Presidents. But I'd bet dollars to donuts few were.
Disagree. The executive disregarding the constitution (judicial oversight) is a coup. Arresting the offenders is bringing the government back into constitutional order. Seems the opposite of a coup to me.
The US Marshalls are part of the Department of Justice, so in a criminal contempt case, the DOJ would be effectively arresting itself. Also, the President can pardon anyone of any federal crime for any reason without any possibility of judicial review. So criminal remedies seem ineffective.
As for fines - it looks like they're capped at $1000, and depending on the circumstances, the government might just be paying that fine to itself. So that doesn't seem effective either.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/402
Congress is intended to be able to enforce via impeachment, but if congress declines to impeach, there's really no consequences for the executive branch.
The only officials who matter here are congressmen, and there's no provision in the US Constitution that would allow for a recall. The only legal mechanism for removal is expulsion, which must be voted on by the rest of Congress, so...
Besides... even where recalls are allowed, it's only by their own district. The Congressmen were just elected, and their constituents generally approve of this. A recall effort would certainly fail.
In theory they could be expelled by Congress itself. But obviously that's not going to happen.
You have more faith in them than I do. I wouldn't be surprised if the 2A crowd rise up, in a year or two, to defend America's Lord and Savior Trump from leftist thugs.
Each day for the remainder of the first session of the 119th Congress shall not constitute a calendar day for purposes of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622) with respect to a joint resolution terminating a national emergency declared by the President on February 1, 2025.
"Each day [..] shall not constitute a calendar day"
An executive with a cowered majority can get away with almost anything when they can issue emergency orders and set aside an appeal and review process intended to temper such orders.
It's a triumph of creative lawyering over overt disobeying of judicial orders.
FDR threatened to pack the court with judges sympathetic to his policies. The Supreme Court Court backed down and ruled, in essence, the New Deal legal. In theory a court can issue arrest warrants but that isn’t going to happen with Trump. SCOTUS has already ruled that Presidents are largely immune to arrest and the President can pardon whomever he wants. Thus, effectively there is no legal mechanism for enforcement.
Much of the American system relies on established political norms for governance. Pretty much all of these norms are being gutted. No one knows what the long term impact will be but I believe the republic as we knew it is dead.
To what extent can the executive get away with disobeying judicial orders (without filing appeals)?