Understand what happens if Trump government ignores a federal judge’s order

Recent legal orders that postpone or block indefinitely from President Donald Trump have raised questions about to what extent the executive can openly disrespect the federal judiciary and how judges would respond.

Any Trump government decision to challenge federal courts would immediately imply profound constitutional issues about the separation of powers that have existed for centuries. The challenge would question the power of the courts to impose decisions that should be the final word.

The issue reached a critical point when the Trump administration deported hundreds of alleged gang members to El Salvador, despite the order of a federal judge that the law of nineteenth -century foreign enemies could not be used.

Asked on Sunday night (17) if his government had violated the judge’s order, Trump replied, “You would have to talk to lawyers about it.”

Legal experts say there are few options to force compliance with pronouncements. Judges may hold an agency or employee for civil or criminal disagreement, but that alone.

The fears that Trump administration could adopt in a standard of not following court decisions with which he disagrees were amplified last month, when a federal judge in Rhode Island, for the second time, said the government could not cut subsidies and loan payments. States led by the Democrats complained that the administration was not obeying the previous order of the judge.

A day earlier, Vice President JD Vance also attracted criticism when questioning in an X post whether courts can block any Trump schedule. “Judges are not allowed to control the legitimate power of the executive,” he wrote.

The most likely response of a court if the administration challenged an order would be to be responsible for the agency for civil contempt, which would allow a judge to apply fines to the government for its non -compliance, experts told the experts CNN .

“So you fine anyone who is the relevant defendant, whether the Treasury Secretary or some other employee, and the fines increase (as non -compliance continues),” said Michael Dorf, Professor of Constitutional Law at Cornell Law School.

But the problem, Dorf added, is that the agency or employee can also ignore the fines imposed. “If they were willing to challenge order first, they may be willing to challenge sanctions,” he said.

At the moment, the Justice Department adopted the usual approach to appeal to a higher court of decisions that blocked various executive actions.

Asked at the White House last month if he would comply with court decisions, Trump said yes.

“Well, I always obey the courts, and then I will have to appeal – but what he did was slow down the effort, and that gives corrupt people more time to cover up,” Trump said. “So yes, the answer is that I always obey the courts, I always obey them. And we will appeal, but the resources take a long time. ”

Other formal sanctions by a court, although based on a deep history, also come with a number of potential problems when applied to the executive branch. If a judge decides to seek criminal contempt, for example, this would need to be initiated by the Justice Department – which means that it is highly unlikely, given the president’s control over this department. The US Marshals Service, which applies federal court orders, is also part of the Justice Department.

“Judges are very cautious about using this – and perhaps appropriately – because it’s a hammer. The threat of sending someone to jail is a kind of last resort, ”said Carl Tobias, professor of constitutional law at the Faculty of Law at the University of Richmond.

Entities or government officials have already been considered in contempt. In 2021, US district judge Royce Lamberth in Washington, DC, considered the city’s arrest in civil contempt but imposed no sanction. The judge, appointed by former President Ronald Reagan, instead sent the arrest to the Justice Department for potential civil rights violations after unable to be treated for a US capitol protctor who needed surgery.

And a president who does not comply with court orders is not unheard of either. Richard Nixon challenged a court order to deliver White House recordings during Watergate’s investigation, and only did so after a determination of the Supreme Court.

Punishment can be political, not cool

David Cole, a teacher of Georgetown Law who repeatedly defended cases before the Supreme Court on behalf of the US Union for civil freedoms, predicted that the most likely penalty that a president would face a court order would be political, not legal.

“The answer,” Cole predicted, “would be to punish the Republican party.”

But Cole noted that during Trump’s first term, the White House often lost great legal disputes, complained loudly about the judge who issued them and then did what every previous administration did after losing: to come with an appeal.

“If the president challenged an order, it would cause a political storm,” Cole said. “And he knows that and therefore it is very unlikely to do so.”

Dorf said the difference between how the Trump administration responded to adverse court decisions during the first term and is now “the full support of Congress Republicans to Trump.”

This support, he said, excludes the possibility that Congress can use its impeachment power to punish Trump or others for potential non -compliance with a court order.

Some Republicans defended the role of the federal judiciary or rejected the idea that the White House can challenge decisions that harm Trump’s agenda.

Among them is Louisiana Senator John Kennedy, a Republican at the Senate Judiciary Committee, who said last month that he supports the “legitimacy of the federal judiciary” and the judicial process.

“I have disagreed with opinions before,” he said. “This is why God created the courts of appeal. This is why God created the US Supreme Court. ”

This content was originally published in Understand what happens if Trump government ignores a federal judge on the CNN Brazil website.

Source: CNN Brasil