The House has subpeonaed Trump’s tax records and other documents. Trump has said no. Presumably this could now go to the Supreme Court, and they could possibly rule in favor of the House and order the submission of the requested documents. Since he’s already refused the House, what would keep him from refusing the Court? Would there be any way to enforce the order?
Realistically, there has never been a way for courts to enforce their orders except through the cooperation of the executive branch with its enforcement powers. See. John Roberts has made his decision, now let him enforce it!
However, Congress could view this contempt for the Supreme Court in and of itself an impeachable offense, so two out of three wins.
*I know the original quote was Marshall, but I like Roberts better. 
Hard to see how that would happen. Might some Senate Republicans turn against Trump if he flouts subpoenas by the Supreme Court, thus jeopardizing the entire government apparatus? Sure, some. Enough? Nope.
I wonder now - can a Federal judge or the Supreme Court then hold the president in contempt for refusing to obey a court order that has been adjudicated to the highest court in the land?
Aren’t members of the capital police and the Secret Service required to enforce that contempt order, placing the President under arrest until he chooses to comply? Because if not…well, shit.
I mean if this won’t be enough, what will? What if Trump refuses to leave office when his term is up, whether his first time or the second? It would be the same story - Supreme Court would rule he must leave, that whatever case he makes is invalid. The Senate Republicans would refuse to vote him out. Now what?
Then we are in a real constitutional crisis. But to answer your questions:
- Sure a court can always hold someone in contempt. They might be reluctant to do so to a co-equal branch of government, but they can. But as always, to enforce that order, it requires cooperation from the executive branch.
This could play out in any court in the country. If the judge orders that my client be jailed, but the executive, represented by the Sheriff, refuses to do it, then what? Hold the Sheriff in contempt? Then what? Call the State Police or the Governor? What if they refuse?
What if they take him to jail, but the warden (also an executive branch official) tells the prisoner to go home? Then the judge is basically sitting on his hands.
-
Pretty much the same as #1. If nobody will arrest the person whom the courts deem to be in contempt, then the court is at an impasse with the executive. Which leads to #3.
-
In our separation of powers in the number of three in our system, the Legislative Branch would break the tie. If the legislature (or Congress) sides with the President (which, I disagree with you that less than the required number of Republicans would so side) then the President wins and our representative republic is changed forever and for the worse.
Could be violence in the streets. Could be a new constitutional norm where the judiciary is rendered impotent. Could be a dictatorship. But again, I don’t believe that members of the executive branch would flout the law (even if Trump would) and I don’t believe the legislative branch would submit to it.
And, once the current POTUS term(s) are over, changes will be made to the constitution to prevent this from happening again.
This reminds of previous scenarios like:
- Junk bonds of the 80’s
- 90s/00s with firms that graded stock could also sit on the board
- Sub-prime loans with little/no money down
- other things I can’t remember…
No rule, regulation, law (AFAIK) prohibited them from being exploited in the manner they were. Lotsa lee-way and little by little they were exploited until significant events occurred. This is the same thing, highest executive position in the land doesn’t have much in the way of it, but there will be. Which is unfortunate as the person holding that position should be given a certain latitude but if it’s abused… Hopefully, at a bi-partisan level, this behavior won’t be tolerated and they will vote for the better of the republic. Cuz, it’s gonna suck if they don’t.
IMHO, he doesn’t make as much as he wants us to believe. That’s why he doesn’t want to provide them. Like in GoT and the empty vault, the item of most value was the door.
Question: do the oaths everyone involved have sworn on the Constitution not give them justification to arrest the executive and properly resolve this deadlock?
I mean, you would agree, in the case of a lawfully adjudicated court order, where the Supreme Court has approved it (or refused to hear it), and a Federal judge has written it, that’s it. The interpreter of the law has made a ruling, and the executive is in the wrong. No man, even an executive, should be above the law.
In your sheriff’s example, his Deputies should be placing him under arrest. (assuming the judge did hold the Sheriff in contempt, which is the obvious next step) Ditto in this case.
Now, sure, if the Sheriff appeals and has a stay on the contempt order, that’s a different story. But if the next court higher refuses to grant a stay, and it’s a valid court order delivered to the police station where the sheriff is, and both the deputies and the sheriff are aware of it, well, again, if the sheriff doesn’t get cuffed and booked, we don’t really have rule of law, do we?
I don’t see a member of the Secret Service ever arresting a sitting president, and the DoJ basically says that a sitting president can’t be prosecuted while in office.
Trump is safe from arrest and prosecution as long as he is in office. Impeachment, having the people turn against him and the congressmen/women who support him, is his greatest threat, and the question would be whether or not the people would turn on him for refusing an order from the nation’s highest court. While I tend to believe that there are many things this president could get away with, defying the highest court would be politically risky and his supporters know it.
Once it’s clear to someone like Mitch McConnell that Trump is a political liability, Trump is finished. And at that point, people like McConnell will be more concerned with their own futures, not Trump’s.
Incidentally: It’s not Trump who’s required to turn over his tax returns. It’s the IRS. No amount of refusal on Trump’s part would matter, if the head of the IRS decides to obey the law.
That’s true for courts, but Congress has the power to enforce its orders directly.
I think the Capitol Police arresting the President would pose constitutional (and, uhh, practical) problems, but you can fine the President without going anywhere near his constitutional powers. Issue the fine, give the President X days to remit the money, and then authorize the Sergeant at Arms to seize the funds from Capital One. If the banks don’t play ball, hold them in contempt and start selling off their office furnishings and real estate.
He can pardon away any contempt orders if the IRS head refuses.
He can pardon criminal contempt (punishment for contempt committed in the past), but not civil contempt (penalties being used to force someone to comply now).
Congress also has the power to do something akin to criminal contempt, by fining and jailing people after the contempt ends. I don’t know if the President can pardon that, as it’s not exactly a frequent thing.
Yes to all of your points. With an asterisk.
We are assuming that Trump is going extra-constitutional and ignoring lawful and sensible court orders.
But what if the situation were different and the courts are ordering him arrested for something silly like being too orange or too Republican or something that we agree is arbitrary and contrary to the rule of law.
Wouldn’t you agree that instead of breaking constitutional tradition and going against the executive, that we would then have the unfortunate duty to disobey the courts?
Then what happens when the President tells (whatever agency that polices banks, I’m drawing a blank here. ) to tell Capital One that if it gives one cent to the Sergeant at Arms then we have found some drug money in your accounts and need to do a thorough review of your banking practices while your banking privileges are suspended?
Obviously I’m not versed in banking, but the point is that the executive enforcement powers will trump (ha!) whatever meager powers that the Sergeant at Arms can muster. Think Barney Fife vs. the U.S. Military.
ETA: We had a similar standoff prior to the civil war regarding Lincoln’s suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.
Now what is, you find out what the elites and the Dems are made of. You’d have to threaten to, and then cripple the economy with shutdowns and tens of millions of people not going to work until he leaves.
Frankly I’m not sure. I never really knew just how buggy the U.S. version of democracy is until things like this started coming up.
Once a court has ordered the IRS to comply and the head honcho refuses, a judge can put him in jail until he agrees. This is unpardonable civil contempt and the court can them turn to his second in command and so on. They will find someone who will not go to jail to protect agent orange. You don’t have to go after the president.
Incidentally I read in the NYTimes a day or two ago that Trump wants to identify and fire the lawyer in the IRS who emitted an opinion that the IRS has no choice but to hand over anybody’s tax return when requested by the head of the appropriate congressional committee. All the poor guy did was give his interpretation of the law, not say he agreed with it.
Those aren’t bugs, they are “Freedom Critters!”
So, what happens when congress starts jailing people who don’t comply, and Trump then responds by threatening to jail people who do comply?
“Stop quoting laws, we carry weapons!”
This isn’t really a bug in “the U.S. version of democracy”, it’s fundamental to every human civilization we’ve ever come up with. No matter how well intentioned, no matter how well defined, no matter how many weird edge cases you think of ahead of time and provide clear solutions to, ultimately you’re at the mercy of the people tasked with enforcing the laws. If they believe in the rule of law, and their duty to uphold it, you’re fine, but if everyone in the hierarchy from the local dogcatcher up to the Joint Chiefs of Staff decide they’re okay with letting the executive get away with ignoring the Supreme Court, you’re screwed.
Perhaps? I won’t concede it’s totally unsolvable. But yes, human beings may not be able to solve it. The fundamental problem here is what happens in cases where multiple sides disagree on what the “truth” really is.
The reason why the executive’s subordinates might allow him to get away with it is because they would have been told a different version of reality that perhaps the one that objectively exists. Republican senators are heroes of their own story. They genuinely, apparently, believe in things like trickle down economics and how everyone needs to earn everything they get in life themselves, how anyone who is poor is probably the cause of their own plight, how private charities are who should be helping, not government. That crime from the “have nots” is increasing. And so on and so forth with hundreds of conservative talking points which seem these days to usually be more often than not inconsistent with objective reality.
Sure, liberals have their own flaws, and communism and socialism (as practiced in the USSR or Europe) are inefficient, but you know.