I’m not sure if this is the right forum, but what happens if lower courts, states, etc simply ignore a Supreme Court ruling?The judiciary has to rely on the executive branch to actually enforce it’s rulings. So what happens if a state just ignores the Supreme Court and the President and Congress refuse to intervene? What happens to a judge who refuses to follow precedence or rules that the Supreme Court was wrong ? Had anything like this happened since the Trail of Tears in the 19th Century
AFAIK, no, nothing like that has happened since the Trail of Tears. But I think that’s the answer. If things get to that point, it means we’re in for something extremely chaotic that is probably going to do a lot of damage to the country. Also AFAIK there was never any satisfactory resolution to what Andrew Jackson did, in terms of laws or amendments that were passed in order to prevent something like that from happening again. Which means more chaos is bound to be involved if we try to “answer” the question outside of the formal way of doing things.
It’s happened plenty of times. When it does, it ends up in the court system again, and the courts say either “That’s covered under this precedent; stop doing that”, or “The precedent doesn’t apply here, for this reason”. It might then get appealed, and might end up before the Supreme Court again, which might say either “We already told you about this one” or “This precedent doesn’t apply” or “We’re overturning the previous decision”.
Some of the more contentious recent Supreme Court decisions have followed this pattern: A previous court ruled something, a state or local government flouted it, it made its way through the levels of the court system, and the Supreme Court overturned the previous decision.
IIRC many northern states ignored the Dred Scott decision.
In the end, SCOTUS has no enforcement power. Unless states and law enforcement and lower courts abide by the rulings there is not much the SCOTUS can do.
I think there’s a strong argument that it happened after Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. The Court ruled that school segregation was unconstitutional. But states resisted, doing things like closing down school systems.
So, the state of New York can jail Trump and just dare the federal goverment to let him out? How would that work? Or is that where we are heading?
It’d be a big mess.
First, New York would have to get their hands on Trump. If Trump stayed in a friendly red state chances are they’d never extradite him. So, as long as Trump never went to an unfriendly state he likely would remain free.
If New York did get him then whether the Feds would storm the state prison to get Trump likely would depend on who was president and if he/she ordered federal agents to storm the prison and free him.
Big mess.
Also note that the Supreme Court has not at this time ruled that Trump cannot be imprisoned. Their recent verdict might lead to grounds for appeal, and that appeal might eventually make its way to the Supreme Court, but it hasn’t yet.
Off topic, hidden
I would think a scenario would be something like:
Time to teach the SCOTUS a lesson. POTUS calls his AG, assembles a crack team of US Marshals. As head of the DoJ, he can order them to go arrest a particular justice, toss him in jail -say for suspected bribery.
Threaten to do the same for any lawyer who files a petition to help him get out - they are conspiring to obstruct justice.
Instruct his marshals to block any access to the person. Block any communications.
If indeed he does get out, rinse and repeat, over and over.
FOr good measure, if the target has a motorhome, seize it and tear it apart to look for drugs. Oops, my bad, noting in any of the pieces we tore off. DOes insurance cover reasembly of something the cops took apart? Freeze his bank accounts. The full power of the law is at the disposal of POTUS without question.
Yes, the charges of bribery would fail, but the whole point is a few days or weeks in max security prison. Over and over until POTUS’ term ends.
Issue blanket pardons to his minions involved.
If necessary, make all evidence of this action top secret - national security.
Under the recent decision, any evidence regarding POTUS discussions or instructions for the bogus arrest or questions about probable cause or civil rights violations are not admissible in court.
The fact that he ordered these in the postion as chief executive makes it all beyond the inspection of the courts.
The problem is that under the ruling, POTUS can do this to anyone. Ordering employees of DoJ is within his purview and cannot be challenged or even used in court in any way.
Or have I misunderstood the ruling?
But to get to the OP’s question, if POTUS orders DoJ officials to ignore the court and also issues blanket pardons to aviod post-term retribution, what recourse does the victim have? They can try to sue in civil court, but proving the act without being able to admit any evidence of the POTUS directions is pretty much impossible. You can’t question the minions, if the instructions were given in the Oval office.
Off topic, hidden
Doesn’t he have to appear in person at sentencing? And can’t the judge throw him jail for the contempt charges alone immediatly?
Off topic, hidden
Sure. But if he does not show they have to go get him.
If it were you or me any state would nab you and ship you to New York.
But what if Trump is in Florida and DeSantis refuses to arrest and extradite Trump?
Off topic, hidden
I think Trump actually wants to do some jail time so he can keep playing the poor persecuted me card.
Andrew Jackson hit the nail on the head. The court can ssue a directive, but it is up to the executive powers to enforce it. I suppose the exception discussed elsewhere is that the Sargeant at Arms of Congress can arrest people who defy congress, if so ordered. Otherwise, it falls to police - local, state, or federal - or the army or similar authorities to carry out orders they are present with. Who can do what and what precedence applies in who outranks who is a fun discussion, since all are armed.
As mentioned, Brown is a prime example of the executive deciding it would enforce a decision.
I guess the follow-up question is - has there ever been an armed stand-off or armed confrontation between the forces of different levels of government since 1865? (Tombstone?)
And the ultimate answer is that if an authority ignores a court order to your detriment, you do have the option to sue in civil court. You have to be able to prove with evidence they ignored an order. And then try to collect.
Off topic, hidden
I truly believe that something is going to happen to stop the sentencing of Trump.
Off topic, hidden
I doubt it.
There is almost no chance he will get a prison sentence. He will get probation and a fine (and a pathetic fine for him). He won’t even notice.
Off topic, hidden
I wonder if serving weekends for a couple of months is an option.
[Moderating]
There are plenty of threads in other forums where that post would be appropriate. This thread, being in FQ, is not one of them. Desist.
[Moderating]
On reading further, there are a number of other off-topic posts.
This thread is not about Trump’s sentencing. Any further posts about Trump’s sentencing will receive Warnings.