By Tom Hals
WILMINGTON, Delaware (Reuters) – Several federal judges have claimed the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump has failed to comply with court orders regarding foreign aid, federal spending and the firing of government workers, which the administration disputes.
Below is a look at what could happen if a court rules the administration is ignoring or not complying with a court order, which some experts describe as a constitutional crisis.
WHAT HAPPENS IF SOMEONE IGNORES A COURT ORDER?
In U.S. courts, if a party to a civil case does not take an action as ordered, the opposing party can ask the court to hold the party in contempt. A judge can also find a party in contempt without being asked to do so.
If a party is found to be in contempt, the court can impose penalties that last until there is compliance. Penalties can include fines or jail time.
Trump in 2022, when he was out of office, was held in contempt and fined by a New York judge for failing to produce documents that were subpoenaed in a civil probe of his private business practices that was led by New York’s attorney general. Trump eventually complied.
DO THE SAME RULES APPLY TO THE GOVERNMENT?
The U.S. Constitution requires a president’s administration to comply with lawful court orders, which the administration can appeal.
Non-compliance with a court order can take many different forms. At its most extreme, a government agency or administration would acknowledge that the order is lawful and the government is capable of complying but is refusing to do so. Some scholars have argued that is what President Abraham Lincoln did during the U.S. Civil War in refusing an order to release John Merryman, who was detained without charge on suspicion he was part of an armed secessionist group.
WHAT HAVE U.S. JUDGES SAID ABOUT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S COMPLIANCE?
On Monday, two federal judges raised questions about the Trump administration’s compliance with their orders.
A judge in Washington questioned if the Trump administration violated his order that temporarily barred the use of a 1798 wartime law to deport Venezuelans. The administration denies that anyone was removed from the United States under the Alien Enemies Act after the judge issued a written order and the judge, James Boasberg in Washington, has asked for further details from the administration.
In San Francisco, U.S. District Judge William Alsup said the Trump administration appeared not to be sending fired probationary employees back to work, but is instead placing them on administrative leave. The administration has said it complied with his order.
Government noncompliance can involve an agency saying it recognizes the need to comply but cannot. For example, the Trump administration has told U.S. Judge Amir Ali, who ordered the resumption of some foreign aid-related payments, that complicated payment systems are preventing the agency from complying with the judge’s timeline. Rather than ordering the government to meet a compliance date, the judge on March 10 asked the government to propose its own timeline.
WHAT CAN COURTS DO TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE?
Judges generally try to avoid showdowns over court orders, legal experts say, and prefer to find ways to modify demands to get compliance. Legal experts said that accusing a department of noncompliance and then setting compliance benchmarks and deadlines often solves the problem.
As a result, U.S. judges almost never impose fines or monetary penalties against heads of federal agencies even though such fines are used with private defendants.
One rare instance occurred in 1999, when a federal judge found the secretaries of the Treasury and Interior Departments were in contempt of court for failing to produce documents in a court case. However, the sanction the judge imposed was limited to paying the fees of the plaintiff’s attorneys.
Judges in at least two instances have used the threat of jail, which is more commonly used against private defendants and even local government officials. A federal judge in Montana in 2008 threatened to send an Agriculture Department official to jail, which led to compliance.
WHAT PROBLEMS DO COURTS FACE ENFORCING COMPLIANCE?
Reluctance to impose sanctions against the federal government may reflect judges’ concerns over sovereign immunity, the doctrine that the government cannot be sued unless it consents.
In one instance in which a U.S. District Court imposed financial penalties on the secretary of health and human services, it was reversed by a U.S. Court of Appeals, which cited sovereign immunity.
Enforcing contempt sanctions is carried out by the U.S. Marshals Service, a Department of Justice body within the executive branch. Some have speculated that if the Trump administration chose not to comply with a court order, it could also direct the Marshals to not comply with enforcing any sanctions, deepening a crisis.
(Reporting by Tom Hals in Wilmington, Delaware; editing by Amy Stevens)
Comments