A federal judge says the Trump administration may have “acted in bad faith” by trying to rush Venezuelan migrants out of the country before a court could step in to block their deportations to El Salvador.
It’s been threatened several times, and there’s been plenty of arguments by Trump’s DOJ that they didn’t actually violate the text of orders (including in this case, where the judge didn’t include in the written order to return flights that have already left U.S. airspace), or that any violations were inadvertent and not intentional, but this is the first case that is dealing with the question of whether the administration intentionally violated a court order.
The judge is taking the steps to learn the facts here, and the shocking thing is that DOJ just put the main attorney on administrative leave (and pulled him off this case) for conceding obvious things in open court. Despite just promoting him to his position the week before.
Intentionally disobeying court orders is a red line, in a way that merely breaking the law isn’t.
If you argue that the Trump administration has already crossed that red line several times, and people start believing it, it carries less force when they actually do cross it. It’s a big deal, and the mere fact that his administration is arguing that they haven’t crossed it (yet) is important for a few reasons:
The rank and file federal employees don’t yet feel that they have the precedent to follow executive branch orders that would violate court orders.
The political actors aligned with Trump don’t yet feel emboldened enough to do the same, if Trump hasn’t done it first.
The resistance can point to that specific act, of crossing the red line, as a position to fight on, for both recruiting fence sitters and their effort to active resistance (and justification for no longer fitting themselves purely within the bounds of the law).
On the other hand, crying wolf about the red line before it is crossed confuses those fence sitters (hyper technical arguments about whether and how the Trump administration broke the law don’t carry the day) and makes it less politically powerful when that line is crossed.
So long as the Trump admin still pretends to care about the law, there’s still a lane for lawsuits and litigation as active resistance. If the Trump administration starts openly flouting court orders, which has not happened yet, that opens up a new chapter.
Trump is pushing limits, but is still being really careful about what is technically legal. If they stop tip toeing around that line, then the resistance is clear to escalate into technically illegal conduct, too, while still aiming for a return of the rule of law.
Muddying the waters by arguing that the line has already been crossed is misreading where we are in this resistance movement.
And disclosure: I’m a lawyer and I have filed things in court against the government, so I have a vested professional and personal interest in believing that what happens in court still matters. But I also have an above average understanding of exactly what the constitutional and statutory powers of the presidency are, and what kind of actions would actually threaten the continued viability of our constitutional government.
There’s not a goal post being moved. I’m describing now where the line has always been for a constitutional crisis: a judicial contempt order that gets disregarded by the executive branch. And the path to that is basically:
The executive branch does something illegal.
Someone sues in court.
The court rules that action to be illegal.
The executive branch doesn’t obey the court order.
The court orders the executive branch to show cause why contempt should not issue.
The court finds the executive branch officials to be in contempt and orders sanctions (aka a punishment).
The executive branch disregards that punishment and refuses to enforce it or obey it.
Steps 1 through 3 are pretty routine, and happen all the time.
And there are off ramps that avoid that constitutional crisis. Maybe it’s a case where the court’s ruling gets overruled on appeal. Maybe the court finds that it doesn’t have jurisdiction to rule on that issue. Maybe the executive branch backs down. One of those has happened so far in all of the cases that have ended.
It’s the cases that are still active where things might go off the rails. This particular Salvadorean deportation case has made it further than any other (past the fifth step I described above) and is the one where DOJ has suspended its own lawyer for admitting that he didn’t have the answers the judge was looking for. In a closely related case, DOJ has suspended its own lawyer for admitting personal frustration with his client (that is, ICE/DHS). These are concerning and worth pushing back on at every turn, and to sound the alarms when that line is actually crossed.
This defeatist attitude, that Trump has already won and is unaccountable, is counterproductive. We’re still busy fighting, and we can still win because we haven’t lost yet.
What this judge is weighing is whether or not he can save face should he drop contempt charges and trump wipes his ass with them
Please please… Let the judge order Trump to do something and let Trump ignore. The constitutional crisis it would create would have to be dealt with.
I’m gonna go grab some popcorn and watch this place burn
That’s already happened a few times and nothing came out of it
No, it hasn’t.
It’s been threatened several times, and there’s been plenty of arguments by Trump’s DOJ that they didn’t actually violate the text of orders (including in this case, where the judge didn’t include in the written order to return flights that have already left U.S. airspace), or that any violations were inadvertent and not intentional, but this is the first case that is dealing with the question of whether the administration intentionally violated a court order.
The judge is taking the steps to learn the facts here, and the shocking thing is that DOJ just put the main attorney on administrative leave (and pulled him off this case) for conceding obvious things in open court. Despite just promoting him to his position the week before.
Trump arguing those is disregarding court orders. Only maga idiots think that a judge’s verbal order does not carry the same weight as a written one
By your line of argument, trump will get away with any and all excuse. Inadvertent breaking the law is still illegal
No, and this is really important.
Intentionally disobeying court orders is a red line, in a way that merely breaking the law isn’t.
If you argue that the Trump administration has already crossed that red line several times, and people start believing it, it carries less force when they actually do cross it. It’s a big deal, and the mere fact that his administration is arguing that they haven’t crossed it (yet) is important for a few reasons:
So long as the Trump admin still pretends to care about the law, there’s still a lane for lawsuits and litigation as active resistance. If the Trump administration starts openly flouting court orders, which has not happened yet, that opens up a new chapter.
Trump is pushing limits, but is still being really careful about what is technically legal. If they stop tip toeing around that line, then the resistance is clear to escalate into technically illegal conduct, too, while still aiming for a return of the rule of law.
Muddying the waters by arguing that the line has already been crossed is misreading where we are in this resistance movement.
And disclosure: I’m a lawyer and I have filed things in court against the government, so I have a vested professional and personal interest in believing that what happens in court still matters. But I also have an above average understanding of exactly what the constitutional and statutory powers of the presidency are, and what kind of actions would actually threaten the continued viability of our constitutional government.
you’ll continue to move the goal post holding to the hope the law will prevail
There’s not a goal post being moved. I’m describing now where the line has always been for a constitutional crisis: a judicial contempt order that gets disregarded by the executive branch. And the path to that is basically:
Steps 1 through 3 are pretty routine, and happen all the time.
And there are off ramps that avoid that constitutional crisis. Maybe it’s a case where the court’s ruling gets overruled on appeal. Maybe the court finds that it doesn’t have jurisdiction to rule on that issue. Maybe the executive branch backs down. One of those has happened so far in all of the cases that have ended.
It’s the cases that are still active where things might go off the rails. This particular Salvadorean deportation case has made it further than any other (past the fifth step I described above)
and is the one where DOJ has suspended its own lawyer for admitting that he didn’t have the answers the judge was looking for.In a closely related case, DOJ has suspended its own lawyer for admitting personal frustration with his client (that is, ICE/DHS). These are concerning and worth pushing back on at every turn, and to sound the alarms when that line is actually crossed.This defeatist attitude, that Trump has already won and is unaccountable, is counterproductive. We’re still busy fighting, and we can still win because we haven’t lost yet.