If an improper effort to block the Marshals from conducting their duty occurs, there is a rarely used authority that allows a court to deputize different law enforcement offers to carry out their orders.
But [David Noll, a law professor at Rutgers Law School] noted, “You have to really sort of go back to the wild west” or the early 20th century “to find cases where private parties or law enforcement officers other than the Marshals were being used to enforce federal court orders.”
The link within the quote box opens this Democracy Docket article, which does the deepest dive I’ve seen yet on psychonaut’s question:
But do the courts really lack authority to jail contemnors — people who defy court orders — if the marshals go rogue? A close look at the courts’ enforcement powers makes clear that judges don’t need to rely solely on the marshals to ensure their orders are enforced.
…
To be sure, a court that appointed someone other than the marshals to enforce a civil contempt order would be breaking new ground. Because of the marshals’ long and honorable history of respecting their legal obligation to enforce federal courts orders, the courts have rarely, if ever, had to turn to other parties to have their orders enforced. If forced to do so, however, individuals from court security officers and probation officers to local police and sheriffs have the training and experience to bring contemnors into court. And unlike the marshals, these individuals would be responsible to the court alone.
Even a rogue marshal’s service, in other words, is not an insurmountable obstacle to courts enforcing the rule of law. If courts have the courage, the legal tools are there.
Thanks for posting this. It is very interesting. I had no idea the courts had the power to deputize other law enforcement to enforce their orders.
I also would note I found it interesting they discuss the idea of the marshal’s service going rogue. Since they are controlled by DOJ it seems it would the the DOJ/AG who would be going rogue by preventing the marshals from doing their duty. Which is already pretty much happening.
Yeah, the hitch seems to be that no one judge wants to be the first to go nuclear. Collectively, the US judiciary is giving the Trump administration A LOT of rope.
A woman from Haiti died after spending over two months in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody, the agency announced on Tuesday.
Marie Ange Blaise, 44, was pronounced dead on Friday night at the Broward Transitional Center in Pompano Beach, Fla. ICE says her cause of death is under investigation.
Speaking on the House floor Wednesday, Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, D-Fla., suggested that Blaise had not been provided adequate medical care.
“Marie had been complaining about chest pain for hours,” said Cherfilus-McCormick, who is the only Haitian-American in Congress. “They gave her some pills and told her to go lie down. Unfortunately, Marie never woke up.”
…
Not nearly deep enough, I’m afraid. I knew that the courts can deputize people to make arrests and enforce judgements, but what if the judgement in this case is a jail sentence? Where does the contemnor serve out his or her term? Surely not at the deputy’s personal residence. Can the court commandeer an entire jail facility and all its staff from the executive branch? If so, what prevents the executive branch from firing the jail’s staff and cutting off its ability to pay its operating expenses?
I understood from that same article that, if necessary and in extremis, a federal judge could make an arrangement with a state or local facility (e.g. the DC Metropolitan police, or analogs in suburban Maryland/Northern Virginia) to keep jailed contemnors (Word of the Day!). It’s not spelled out super-explicitly exactly, but that seems to be what the article was getting at: If the federal-level executive branch denies the federal judiciary an enforcement service, the federal judiciary has the power and the right to procure that service independently.
To the MAGA mindset ALL of these people are dangerous, violent, drug-dealing criminals and don’t deserve anything other than deportation. They don’t care how long these people are imprisoned, they don’t care about the conditions they are kept in, they don’t care if any of them are sick or injured… and if they die? They don’t care about that either.
IANAL, but I believe “judgement” in the legal sense in the US is narrowly defined as a ruling made in a civil case and you can’t be sentenced to jail or any other confinement in a civil proceeding.
I have near zero experience in criminal law. But I’m pretty certain that judgments issue in both civil and criminal cases.
While a judge or jury may issue a verdict, the court ultimately enters judgment - which is the court’s official ruling.
Another possibly confused term is “order.” Orders can concern any number of “decisions” during the course of a proceeding - including setting forth the court’s final decision. And orders are issued in both criminal and civil actions.
But the “judgment” is the final act which sets forth the status of the parties and terminates the proceeding. In the district court civil cases I most frequently see, there is generally a memorandum order setting forth the court’s reasoning and decision, and an accompanying judgment that establishes the rights and obligations of the parties.
If you check the rules for appeal - such as the state or federal rules for civil, criminal, or appellate procedure, I’m pretty certain your time to seek relief runs from the date of entry of judgment.
Further nit to pick, while either spelling is acceptable, I believe judgment - without the 2d “e” - is the preferred American spelling.
Paralegal in the U.S. here. This is broadly my understanding as well. Both civil and criminal proceedings feature the concept of a “judgment,” albeit in fundamentally different ways.
A civil judgment is the final determination of the rights and obligations of the parties at the outcome of a dispute among private parties. Criminal sanctions aren’t usually imposed in civil cases, unless it’s for civil contempt of court or violation of a protective order. The only “punishment” in civil court is money or an injunction.
In criminal law, a judgment is entry of a court’s final decision, which comprises the verdict, sentence, and conditions of sentence. Final judgments are still entered when the defendant pleads guilty or no contest, after which the presiding jurist issues a judgment of conviction. Even if the case goes to trial, meanwhile, there still must be a judgment ratifying the verdict.
I wasn’t intending to respond to anything other than what I perceived as some inaccurate explanations/definitions. IME, it s not uncommon for non-lawyers to use certain legal terms inaccurately.
I have no knowledge of how criminal judgments tend to be written/phrased and what is involved in the effectuation of various aspects of a judgment. Sorry if I have confused anything.
