You are completely confused here.
My initial reference to Wikileaks was in contradiction to the assertion by Lemur866 in the post which preceded mine. (Carefully reread the exchange and linked article, if necessary.)
You then claimed that that same cite which “specifically answers your OP”, quoting a different part of the article. It did not.
Right. But a “factual answer” that consists of an assertion from a non-expert is not worth all that much, if anything.
For what it’s worth, I practice law in the federal courts (including the western district of Washington (Seattle) and the ninth circuit court of appeals), and I am not aware of any rule or judicial theory that allows a federal executive agency to ignore a court order or injunction. Whether an injunction or order is valid is for the next appellate court to decide. The executive branch may decide that an order is “invalid” and ignore it, but this would not be premised on any accepted constitutional or judicial rule – frankly, we’re talking about a constitutional crisis if that were to occur.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Understood. But I’m not sure if that answers my specific question in the OP, which was not about federal agencies specifically and would also apply to private citizens.
Meaning, suppose a court issues an injunction to me personally. I believe this injunction is ridiculous and the court overstepped its authority. So I flout it, all the while appealing to a higher court. The higher court rules in my favor. The question I have is: does this retroactively absolve me from having violated the injunction, now ruled to have been invalid and beyond the authority of the court? Or am I still in violation despite the higher court agreeing with me, because it had not been revoked yet at the time I violated it.
I think it’s pretty much established that you do what the court says unless/until a higher court says otherwise. Ignoring a court order is breaking the law.
What answer do you want to hear?
That generalized hypothetical doesn’t work because this would depend on the fact pattern. What was the injunction? What was the court’s response to you ignoring it? If the court simply ordered you to stop doing something, and the appellate court found the lower court’s injunction to have been invalid, then…well, nothing. You simply go on not doing what the lower court ordered. If you were found in comptempt and jailed, the appellate court would presumably order your release along with its order overturning the lower court’s order. The point is, a court’s order is valid until it’s determined to be invalid by a higher court (and not by any individual or executive agency).
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The general rule is that civil contempt sanctions fall if the underlying court order (or injunction) is deemed invalid. Criminal contempt sanctions do not.
Yes, and then what happens? You"face" criminal or civil penalties. You also be “charged” with contempt of court.
In the ordinary world, I see that it might be more difficult to have the courts over-rule an injustion if you are ignoring it. If you are ignoring it, most of the ground for immediate relief seem to disappear ???
But moving to the hypothetical, what kind of a penelty would you expect (after appeals) for ignroing an outragously wrong injunction?
This revived thread from 2012 might be educational for several of us. I’ve only skimmed it so far. How is the US Supreme Court checked & balanced? - Factual Questions - Straight Dope Message Board
This actually happened in the Hulk Hogan case. Not following the order and taking down the entire article bit them big time. Every lawyer I read on the subject said that you have to follow the injunction even if you think it is wrong and are going to challenge it.
The way judges enforce their injunctions is through implied threat of holding individuals in contempt. Many people may not realize this but the law allows judges to issue arrest warrants and have people held without any need for criminal charges (or a trial) if the judge finds that the person is “acting in contempt” of the court order. In other words, the law allows people to be jailed even though they might not have “broke the law”.
Having sat through an embarrassing number of Child Support Enforcement cases … I can assure everyone that here locally an individual certainly can be jailed for not complying with a Court Order … up to six months …