The Supreme Court has the power to hold individuals in contempt (and send them to jail) for defying its judgments. In its 235-year history, it has exercised that authority only once.
Hi, off topic question: Could the effective dismantling of USAID be challenged as a violation of the so-called “major powers doctrine”? That is, could (or would) the court deem Trump to have taken an action not clearly authorized by Congress and therefore a breach of that “doctrine”? Shuttering an agency created by statute seems like a bigger departure from Congressional intent than expanding the Education Department’s emergency powers to forgive some student loans.
Eighteen months from charge to trial ain’t gonna cut it today. The damage will already be done. It will just reinforce Trump’s belief that courts can be gamed and ignored.
As British Prime Minister William Gladstone famously said, “Justice delayed is justice denied". It is maddening as hell that 'justice for all' seems to exempt the wealthy and powerful.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals encountered similar difficulties in 1962 in connection with contempt proceedings against Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett (and others) relating to their obstruction of court orders concerning James Meredith efforts to enroll in the University of Mississippi. Because the district court(s) repeatedly failed to order that Meredith be admitted, the Fifth Circuit entered an injunction itself. See Meredith v. Fair, 328 F.2d 586 (5th Cir. 1962) (en banc). When Barnett disobeyed that order, he was cited for contempt. Because it was the Fifth Circuit’s en banc order which had been contemptuously disobeyed, that Court had to conduct the (evidentiary) trial on the show cause order. It was a mess; every evidentiary objection had to be ruled on by the (divided) en banc court. After that, the Fifth Circuit adopted a policy of not entering substantive, merits orders itself; instead, it would remand cases to the lower courts with directions that the district court enter the order the Fifth Circuit decreed (so that any evidentiary hearings on contempt proceedings would be tried in the lower court). I’m pretty sure it remained that way thereafter, except for interim or preliminary injunctions, such as those currently sought in emergency docket cases and associated practice. But that raises an interesting question: what would happen if somebody violated an interim or preliminary injunction issued by the appellate court? That must have occurred, but I am unaware of any example.
How is a 'contempt' finding impacted by SCOTUS's own immunity ruling? I imagine a clever DOJ lawyer could come up with an argument placing Trump's actions within the - at least - outer periphery of his presidential powers. Wouldn't that make him immune?
That argument would only be available (and not necessarily correct) if the relief were against Trump, directly. Relief against a lower-level government official, e.g., a Cabinet Secretary or agency head, would be a different matter altogether.
Would the 'I was only following orders' excuse work well for said Cabinet Secretary? And there is still the problem as you point out of the executive branch enforcing against the executive branch. Looks like this will be getting fast forwarded with judge's ruling that the Trump administration is violating the order lifting the spending freeze. Thanks for your patience in explaining the details of what's going on legally.
Legal scholar Adrian Vermeule suggests (The New Digest, Substack) that under a "maximilist" executive authority, subordinates (who derive their authority from the executive) would enjoy the same immunity as the executive. Let's hope the S Ct does not agree.
The Shipp case is what would now be demoninated criminal comtempt, as the objective was punitive, correct? In the case of civil contempt there would be no need for DOJ to prosecute.
This is a thoroughly corrupt court. As a matter of 6-3 ideology it will never hold the Trump people accountable for anything. It may well hold Joe Biden or someone like that in contempt
As this is Black History Month, I want to mention Lucy Terry Prince (ca 1733-1821), a former enslaved person known to have composed the earliest work of literature by an African-American, a poem entitled "The Bars Fight," also successfully defended her family for rights to land in front of the Vermont Supreme Court. Good synopsis of her life here, https://vtdigger.org/2023/04/16/then-again-lucy-terry-prince-a-poet-and-storyteller-who-stood-up-to-the-mob/ , and here https://brattleboro.stqry.app/1/list/6498/story/16641
Hi, off topic question: Could the effective dismantling of USAID be challenged as a violation of the so-called “major powers doctrine”? That is, could (or would) the court deem Trump to have taken an action not clearly authorized by Congress and therefore a breach of that “doctrine”? Shuttering an agency created by statute seems like a bigger departure from Congressional intent than expanding the Education Department’s emergency powers to forgive some student loans.
Eighteen months from charge to trial ain’t gonna cut it today. The damage will already be done. It will just reinforce Trump’s belief that courts can be gamed and ignored.
As British Prime Minister William Gladstone famously said, “Justice delayed is justice denied". It is maddening as hell that 'justice for all' seems to exempt the wealthy and powerful.
Who will enforce the court’s orders this time around?
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals encountered similar difficulties in 1962 in connection with contempt proceedings against Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett (and others) relating to their obstruction of court orders concerning James Meredith efforts to enroll in the University of Mississippi. Because the district court(s) repeatedly failed to order that Meredith be admitted, the Fifth Circuit entered an injunction itself. See Meredith v. Fair, 328 F.2d 586 (5th Cir. 1962) (en banc). When Barnett disobeyed that order, he was cited for contempt. Because it was the Fifth Circuit’s en banc order which had been contemptuously disobeyed, that Court had to conduct the (evidentiary) trial on the show cause order. It was a mess; every evidentiary objection had to be ruled on by the (divided) en banc court. After that, the Fifth Circuit adopted a policy of not entering substantive, merits orders itself; instead, it would remand cases to the lower courts with directions that the district court enter the order the Fifth Circuit decreed (so that any evidentiary hearings on contempt proceedings would be tried in the lower court). I’m pretty sure it remained that way thereafter, except for interim or preliminary injunctions, such as those currently sought in emergency docket cases and associated practice. But that raises an interesting question: what would happen if somebody violated an interim or preliminary injunction issued by the appellate court? That must have occurred, but I am unaware of any example.
How is a 'contempt' finding impacted by SCOTUS's own immunity ruling? I imagine a clever DOJ lawyer could come up with an argument placing Trump's actions within the - at least - outer periphery of his presidential powers. Wouldn't that make him immune?
That argument would only be available (and not necessarily correct) if the relief were against Trump, directly. Relief against a lower-level government official, e.g., a Cabinet Secretary or agency head, would be a different matter altogether.
Would the 'I was only following orders' excuse work well for said Cabinet Secretary? And there is still the problem as you point out of the executive branch enforcing against the executive branch. Looks like this will be getting fast forwarded with judge's ruling that the Trump administration is violating the order lifting the spending freeze. Thanks for your patience in explaining the details of what's going on legally.
Legal scholar Adrian Vermeule suggests (The New Digest, Substack) that under a "maximilist" executive authority, subordinates (who derive their authority from the executive) would enjoy the same immunity as the executive. Let's hope the S Ct does not agree.
I have contempt for them for a whole lot of other reasons.
The Shipp case is what would now be demoninated criminal comtempt, as the objective was punitive, correct? In the case of civil contempt there would be no need for DOJ to prosecute.
Never is a very long time perhaps it is best to wait and see. You might be right but only time will tell.
This is a thoroughly corrupt court. As a matter of 6-3 ideology it will never hold the Trump people accountable for anything. It may well hold Joe Biden or someone like that in contempt