The Justice Department, the State Department and perhaps the White House top officials may be guarding the barrels towards a criminal conviction against the court's light empty. But even if they are convicted, it is not clear whether anything will happen to them.
On Wednesday, Judge James Boasberg determined that Trump administration officials who denied one of his orders had a “presumed cause” to conclude that they had requested that deportation be suspended under illegal orders calling wartime laws. (A light empt is a process used to punish people who violate court orders, sometimes imprisoned.)
Boasberg's order concludes that unless the government provides legitimate procedures to those deported by allowing them to challenge deportation in federal courts, he will identify the person responsible for this rebellion and put it on criminal trial.
Boasberg's original order, which halted these deportations, was ultimately voided by the Supreme Court's Republican Justice five, alleging that the plaintiffs in that case had brought the case to the wrong court. But as the Supreme Court said US vs United Miners (1947), “The defendant may be punished for criminal cont crimes for disobedience in orders appointed without being reserved for appeal.”
When Boasberg laid out in Wednesday's opinion, the Trump administration ignored the original order by flying many individuals to El Salvador and handing them over to Salvador officials.
It is unlikely that Boasberg will be the last judge to consider a denial charge against this administration. Judge Paula Sinis, who oversees the famous case relating to Kilmer Abrego Garcia, who was deported to El Salvador against court orders, appears to be laying the foundation for the light empt procedure against Trump authorities.
However, even if Boasberg or Xinis could identify who is responsible for rebelling against the government's court order, the Trump administration is unlikely to cooperate in investigating internal decisions, so it is not at all certain that Trump officials will face consequences for their actions, at least as long as President Trump is president.
In a well-known essay on the court, Alexander Hamilton argued that the judiciary is “always the most dangerous” of the three branches of the federal government. Because “ultimately, even the validity of that judgment must depend on the help of the enforcement department.” If someone violates a federal court order, the order is usually enforced by the former US S-Service, a law enforcement agency housed in the Department of Justice. Trump was able to potentially order the DOJ not to force the decisions that Boasberg or Xinis conveyed.
Similarly, federal law provides that federal courts have the power to “punish people in fines or prisons” for those who do not follow an order, but fines are collected by administrative officials and paid to the US Treasury Department, which is also part of the enforcement department. The Federal Prisons Bureau is part of the Department of Justice and once again part of the administrative division. The federal government executive director is Donald Trump.
Importantly, Boasberg points to the provisions of the federal government's rules of criminal procedure. This requires that if the Trump administration refuses to indict his officials, he “appoints another lawyer to indict light empt.” Even if Trump's Justice Department refuses to indict him and attempts to obstruct the proceedings, the trial could still occur with court-appointed lawyers sitting on the chair of the prosecutor. However, the verdict is not possible.
In fact, the federal court of appeals showed that Trump is highly aware of the danger of blocking judicial attempts to bring his administration to compliance with the law. On Thursday, the US Court of Appeals in the Fourth Circuit rejected the Trump administration's request to cut off many of the cases in Sinis' court. “We must not microcontrol the efforts of great district judges to implement the Supreme Court's recent decision,” the decision in favour of Abrego Garcia wrote in its opinion.
But Wilkinson, a Reagan appointee who was considered for appointment to the Supreme Court by Republican President George W. Bush, ended his opinion with a warning that the enforcer and the judiciary “will be too close to crushing each other without revoking each other in a dispute that promises to reduce both.”
Trump admitted in the battle between the executive and the Judicial Branch that “weaking the courts could be successful for a while.”
So, what can we do about the Trump administration's rebellion against court orders?
Ultimately, if Trump or his subordinates are allegedly liable for rebellion in court orders, that is because the court, or Congress, exercises their authority in a way that Trump cannot stop.
The Constitution considers a very simple remedy for lawless presidents: the elimination from the bluff and duties. But realistically, 67 votes are needed in the Senate to eliminate Trump, and the Senate couldn't even find 67 votes to disqualify Trump after inciting violent mobs to attack the U.S. Capitol in 2021.
Another possibility is that if Trump administration officials are convicted of light emptying, they could be fined or imprisoned after Trump takes office. The next president remains to be seen whether future fines and potential imprisonment will affect Trump authorities' actions, but it could order law enforcement to implement court orders Trump has refused.
Furthermore, federal courts have full authority that lawyers are permitted to practice before them. Therefore, as long as lawyers representing the Trump administration in Boasberg or Sinis' courts were involved in decisions that violate the court's orders, they could be denied in Boasberg or Xinis' courts. Judges can also introduce them to state bars. It can strip them of their license to fully implement the law.
The sanctions have been used effectively against some lawyers who have enabled Trump to commit fraud. For example, a California lawyer's court recommended that former Trump's lawyer John Eastman, who supported Trump's failed efforts to overturn former President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election, be denied. Because of that recommendation, Eastman cannot practice law in California, but the state Supreme Court decides whether to deny him forever.
That said, it is not yet clear whether the attorneys are responsible for illegal deportation, or whether there are far fewer attorneys who have appeared in Boasburg or Xinis' courtrooms. Additionally, some of the lawyers representing the government in these cases appear to have acted with even more respect. For example, in the early proceedings in the Abrego Garcia case, Sinis asked the government's lawyers why the government cannot return Abrego Garcia to the United States. The lawyer's response was, “The first thing I did was to ask my clients a lot. Until now, I have not received a satisfactory answer.”
Thus, a denial could allow the court to reach some officials who may have played some role in rebelling against the Trump administration's court order, but it rarely provides a complete remedy.
Another chaotic factor hanging over Boasberg and Xinis is the Supreme Court itself. This is, after all, the same Supreme Court that recently ruled that Trump is permitted to use the president's authority to commit crimes. Therefore, there is no guarantee that justice will not interfere with the light-empt lawsuit against Trump administration officials.
