Not exactly. Linguistically, it’s like lese majeste. You said something bad about the court, indicating that you feel contempt for the court, and for that, you can get punished.
The court doesn’t hold you to be contemptible. It gets mad if it thinks you hold it contemptible.
(Which, given some court decisions, is all but unavoidable!)
It would only be an effective tactic if Trump found a way to write his order so it had it’s original effect but was in some way clearly not a breach of anything. And you have to assume if he could have done that, he would have by now.
If all Trump was doing was varying minor details that didn’t make the executive order any more clearly valid than the first one, it wouldn’t be an effective tactic. The ACLU’s lawyers are just going to get faster at applying for injunctions. Their applications and supporting material would already be written (more or less). And the judge would also be faster to grant the injunction because (a) he/she will already be across the issues and (b) they are not going to take kindly to being “played” and (c) each time the injunction is granted it will be worded more carefully so as to prevent a repeat.
In all the British legal systems from English ( Common Law ) to Scots ( Romano-Germanic ), I have never once heard of anyone punished for expressing an opinion of a judge or his opinions, outside a court.
I disagree. If a court has found reasonable grounds to say an action is suspect, trying to do the same action but with a semi-colon instead of a comma would be equally suspect.
As I said, a couple months ago we had a very similar case in the Netherlands. Geert Wilders usually says a lot of crazy shit, but this time he said to a cheering crowd that he would “arrange for less Morroccans in the Netherlands”. In a civic trial, he then said in court that the Judges were fake and partisan. Here is a description in English: Judge: Wilders' "fake court" statement not undermining to legal system | NL Times
There is your answer right there. The highlighted bit. Being disrespectful to the Court to its face will result in sanction. The same outside the Court, will not, at least not typically, unless there are something more.
President Barack Hussein Obama criticized the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizen’s United case in his 2010 State of the Union address
Yes, but did he call the judges who made the decision “so-called judges”? That’s the point under discussion here.
Anyone can always criticize a decision made by a court, inside the court and outside the court. Inside, because that is how the law develops, by continual critiques and re-evaluation of past decisions; outside, because court decisions are matters of public interest.
But at what point, if ever, does critiquing the judge become a potential contempt of court?
It is not really any different from the guideline here at the SDMB: critique the post, not the poster. 
If it leads to actual hampering of the Courts functioning. Protesting a decision outside a Court Complex? No problem. Protesting every day for weeks? Yeah, cut that out.
Guys, it’s not that unclear:
Note the caveat “in the courtroom” eregarding rudeness or disrespect. It appears that Trump can refer to an officer of the court as a “so-called judge” on Twitter all he likes; call the judge that in the courtroom (especially after being warned not to do so), or publically refuse to obey a court order (something Trump has not yet done), and Contempt it is.
Contempt of court is showing a disrespect for the court during a court proceeding. There is no law against criticizing a judge. What Trump did has all kinds of problems with it but it’s not illegal.
There is no proven imminent threat so the argument is that Trump cannot use war powers to close off the borders, that’s what makes this unconstitutional. If he could show that there was a specific plan by bad guys from these specific nations then he would have an argument, but he doesn’t have anything other than a gut feel. We don’t suspend the laws of our country for gut feels.
We have also been in a war on drugs for decades and have responded by going after the bad guys directly, not by going after all citizens of a country. He has other methods available to him other than a thinly veiled blanket ban on Muslims.
Contempt of court is only handed out for being disrespectful to a judge in the courtroom, and Trump hasn’t been and isn’t going to be in the judge’s courtroom himself (he’ll send a lawyer to contest it). It just isn’t done and doesn’t fit at all with the first amendment - criticizing the government is pretty much the most protected category of speech there is. I really wish that people would sit and think through the wider, long-term effect of the precedent set in these ‘lets get Trump’ schemes. If people were facing contempt of court charges for criticizing or insulting judges outside of the courtroom, it would have a chilling effect on free speech. Imagine if all of the critics of the judge in Stanford Rapist trial, including the people circulating a petition to have him removed from the bench, were risking jail time for contempt of court.
From here:
Thank you for writing it clearer than I can. The judge did not rule that the administration attempted to act outside of its authority. He ruled that the administration did so in an unconstitutional manner. Attempting to usurp the powers of the Executive would be an even worse breech of the constitution than anything the administration has done.
Somewhat different legal system. It’s practically impossible in the US to bring legal action against somebody for saying they’ll ‘arrange for less X’s in the country’. The person has to aim their statement at particular people by name, or else literally say ‘let’s go do harm to them now’.
And arranging for fewer Moroccans it would seem could be construed as simply expelling Moroccan nationals from the Netherlands. I can see how you might disagree strongly but am puzzled with a concept of free expression where it would be a crime to propose that. Though I guess the fact that national views differ on this on average is why national systems are different, or the tradition of having a particular system affects opinions, anyway it’s different.
And as others have noted, whether or not in theory it’s possible to be held in contempt of court in the US by insulting a judge, or apparently questioning his legitimacy, outside a courtroom, it virtually never happens.
‘Contempt’ outside a US courtroom practically speaking means disobeying an order of a judge intended to be carried out outside a courtroom. And the main cases where that relates to speech are cases of information a person obtains in a courtroom they aren’t supposed to discuss outside it. A rogue judge might give an order ‘don’t bad mouth me, anywhere’ and haul a person in for contempt if they disobeyed, but it would seem unlikely to stand review.
Wow, if only he had somebody on staff whose job it was to advise him when his EO’s are possibly illegal. Dang, that would be handy.
Not entirely fair. Obama had a few EOs struck down. Some things are in the grey area and the Prez just pushes to see what flies.
No competent legal advisor would have told the President that this EO was illegal.