In practice, Presidents don’t go around ignoring Supreme Court decisions. In 1974 when the Supreme Court ordered Nixon to turn over the tapes he recorded of White House meetings, he did so knowing full well he would have to resign or be impeached and convicted. You don’t ignore the men (and occasional women) in black robes.
But if one didn’t? That would be a major political crisis.
I’ve been trying to find that cite myself From what I remember it was an issue of interpretation of Texas’s stop and identify statue that requires one to identify themselves and give their address when asked by law enforcement. DPD claimed that since the law required an individual to identify themself and that without state issued ID there was no way to confirm their identity anyone who could not produce ID had violated the statute. The court disagreed and held verbally stating your name and address was sufficient, which is in line with other states and rulings.
OK, that looks like some folks who are unaware of the court decision, not folks who are intentionally disregarding it. And there’s a difference between “IDing oneself” and carrying ID. The former, which is what your cites talk about, just mean giving your name and address.
the way I read it:
If arrested, it is a crime no to identify yourself or if you give a false name.
If you are witness to a crime, it is a crime to give a false name (but not a crime to refures to identify yourself).
IIRC, there was a majo case somewhere in the southwest that made it to SCOTUS - the result was, if the police have a legitimate reason to need to ID you (in this case, the people were reported as fighting, and the officer wanted their names) the law can require you to ID yourself.
Regardless, arresting a person for an invalid cause is grounds for a good lawsuit. Arresting a person for a reason you know the courts have said is invalid - will give the grounds for a good lawsuit not only against the employer but also the LEO personally.
the problem with any defiance is - it escalates the situation.
I don’t think this can be correct. In probably the seminal jurisdiction stripping case, Ex parte McCardle, a Confederate of some sort (either a veteran or sympathizer) published some stuff the military governor of his district did not like. He was arrested and held without charge and etc, essentially meaning he was held in violation of common habeas corpus rights in the United States. After some back and forth the case went to the SCOTUS. The military was able to suspend habeas rights specifically because of a law that Congress had passed for Reconstruction. So the SCOTUS would be deciding directly if such a law could actually be effected and not violate the constitution. After the case had been kicked up to the SCOTUS, but before they could rule, the Congress removed appellate jurisdiction over habeas claims from the SCOTUS. The justices came out and essentially said, “we can’t rule on this matter because the power of the Congress to determine our appellate jurisdiction is essentially absolute, and our only function in such a case is to note we can’t rule on the matter.”
That case is a great read. Taney appealed to somebody/anybody for justice because he was totally impotent to enforce his own order. It was not Lincoln’s finest moment.
Presumably because the fellow was arrested by a military governor, a law suspending habeus corpus was covered by this clause.
Read further in the wiki article about the battle between the executive and court over the right to suspend habeus, including the famous quote by the leading lawyer of the land, that the constitution does not actually grant the right to habeus corpus just because it says it cannot be taken away. Ah, lawyers. :rolleyes: Here too is a classic example of the OP’s question. The administration’s chief weapon was a fanatical devotion to… chasing down terrorists. However, they used weasel words and amended laws and stalling tactics to get around the Supreme Court, not outright defiance. SCOTUS, OTOH, was not so stupid and blindered as to order “open the floodgates, release all the terrorists tomorrow.” They recognized the issues involved and gave the administration the wiggle room to craft constitutional workarounds that allowed it to keep actual combatants in jail but did not remove all constitutional guarantees. Basically, everyone follows the rules and nobody gets hurt… Except the guys with stress position arthritis in Guantanamo.
Technically, FDR was fighting against old power grabs by previous court decisions, in favor of popular movements like labor unionism and social democracy. The politicians of a previous era had taken power and wealth for special interests, FDR was actually trying to get some of it back, believe it or not.
But parts of the New Deal were pretty intrusive by today’s standards. Note, by today’s standards. We live in a very pro-business climate today.
From what I remember it was an issue of interpretation of Texas’s stop and identify statue that requires one to identify themselves and give their address when asked by law enforcement. DPD claimed that since the law required an individual to identify themself and that without state issued ID there was no way to confirm their identity anyone who could not produce ID had violated the statute. The court disagreed and held verbally stating your name and address was sufficient, which is in line with other states and rulings.