The Trump administration is already under fire as two federal judges consider a finding of contempt against Trump administration officials for willfully breaching court orders. Judges James Boasberg and Paula Xinis have been at the forefront of this judicial war. They are in fact closely monitoring whether the administration’s actions warrant penalties. The scenario presents larger questions as well about enforcement mechanisms and what federal court authority should entail.
I would argue that recent claims have been made that the Trump administration has not followed through with certain directives from federal courts. These moves spark critical conversations around the necessity and means of enforcing contempt orders. Federal rules give judges the power to ignore traditional avenues of enforcement. This would be a watershed moment in judicial history. This is particularly important given how previous administrations, of both parties, have neglected to comply with such contempt findings.
Legal Context and Judicial Authority
Only district court judges are authorized to issue contempt findings. They come to this conclusion when they decide that a litigant party is in contempt of court. This authority is foundational to the integrity of the rule of law and judicial system as a whole. Even the Supreme Court has recognized the importance of being able to enforce court orders through contempt. They urge them to exercise this new power with caution.
As legal scholar Nicholas Parillo recently underscored, this represents a profound failure. He contends that when litigants can determine the enforceability of judicial orders and choose to disregard them, it undermines the power of our courts. He states, “If a party can make himself a judge of the validity of orders which have been issued, and by his own disobedience set them aside, then are the courts impotent, and what the Constitution now fittingly calls the ‘judicial power of the United States’ would be a mere mockery.”
The federal rules of civil procedure outline how process should be served, indicating that it must be “reasonably calculated to reach the person to be served.” This small but damning detail highlights the significance of adhering to consent decrees and other judicial directives. It highlights the unexpected challenges that often emerge when collaborating with government partners.
Enforcement Challenges and Historical Precedents
In practice, historically, contempting U.S. government officials has been quite difficult. Judges are loath to go after government litigants with an iron fist. Such past contempt rulings were made against officials from past Clinton and Bush administrations. These decisions were the result of their gross mismanagement of Native American trust funds. These examples demonstrate the challenge to implement judicial power over government actors.
David Noll, a professor at Rutgers Law School said that judges have other remedies available to enforce contempt orders. He explains, “Federal rules appear to allow judges to bypass the marshals and hire other parties to enforce contempt rulings.” This enforcement strategy is consistent with a larger change in how courts may treat noncompliance in the future.
Even with all of these available alternatives, the enforcement of contempt orders is almost exclusively left to U.S. marshals. There are many reasons for their strong track record of fulfilling legal obligations and enforcing court orders. This, in turn, means that courts seldom have to look beyond the advocates for help. Noll points to an important distinction — unlike the marshals, these people are accountable only to the court. This distinction undermines any faith one might have in their accountability or effectiveness.
The Role of Compliance and Potential Sanctions
When the government is found in contempt, it has a chance to “purge” itself by making future compliance with the order. On the other hand, if it fails to act, judges do have the power to assign a public attorney to seek enforcement. This third option emphasizes the judiciary’s resolve to make sure the institutions under its purview follow the orders they are given.
Though criminal contempt has its own difficulties, sometimes requiring more formal indictment or charges by the Justice Department, etc. A president can nullify criminal contempt as a punishment with the stroke of a pen in the form of a presidential pardon. Such an action would pose serious ethical concerns about accountability and respect for the rule of law.
Judge Paula Xinis expressed frustration over the lack of response from officials regarding compliance with her orders: “I’ve gotten no real response and no real legal justification for not answering.” This statement highlights ongoing tensions between the judiciary and executive branches, as well as the challenges judges face in enforcing their decisions.