Justice Kagan stresses the need for government officials to obey court orders
Follow
Supreme Court Associate Justice Elena Kagan said Thursday that one of the major challenges facing the federal judiciary today is the possibility of government officials defying court orders.
The comments from Kagan, one of three liberal members on the high court, come as the Trump administration has been accused of flouting orders from lower courts.
'This idea that litigants, and most especially here I'm talking about government officials, needn't obey the dictates of courts. Needn't obey court orders. And you know that just is not the way our system works, not the way rule of law in this country works,' Kagan said during a wide-ranging conversation before an audience of judges and lawyers at the 9th US Circuit Judicial Conference as she discussed several things she thought presented a challenge to the nation's federal court system.
She continued: 'And that's true for the Supreme Court, and it's also true for every district court, unless and until an appellate court or the Supreme Court says otherwise — that judicial orders are judicial orders and need to be respected.'
Among the other issues Kagan said are facing her colleagues in the judiciary are threats to their personal safety and the way people talk about judges in the US. She pointed to a rare statement Chief Justice John Roberts issued earlier this year after President Donald Trump called for judges who ruled against him to be impeached.
'Judges are fair game for all kinds of criticism: strong criticism, pointed criticism. But vilifying judges in that way is a step beyond and ought to be understood as such,' Kagan said at the event in Monterey, California.
The administration has been accused of skirting court orders in a range of cases, but judges have largely avoided pursuing contempt proceedings against officials.
The issue reached new heights last month after a fired Justice Department lawyer who worked on immigration cases filed a whistleblower complaint that claimed a top DOJ official crudely told others in the department to ignore court orders before a controversial immigration enforcement situation in March.
Emil Bove, the official accused of making the comments, has denied the allegations. The US Senate is currently considering whether to confirm him to a lifetime appointment on a Philadelphia-based federal appeals court.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
5 minutes ago
- USA Today
Mike Johnson says Ghislaine Maxwell should serve 'life sentence,' opposes potential pardon
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, said he believes Ghislaine Maxwell, a key associate of Jeffrey Epstein currently serving 20 years in prison for conspiring to sexually abuse minors, should face "a life sentence." "If you're asking my opinion, I think 20 years was a pittance," Johnson told NBC's Kristen Welker on "Meet the Press" July 27. "I think she should have a life sentence, at least." His remarks to NBC come as many, including supporters of President Donald Trump, clamor for testimony from Maxwell. Some followers of the case have proposed a pardon in exchange, but Trump told reporters on July 25 he hadn't considered the move. "I'm allowed to do it, but it's something I have not thought about," the president said. Epstein was charged with sexually trafficking minors and died by suicide while in detention in 2019. Maxwell, his longtime girlfriend, has been accused of recruiting minors for the disgraced financier's predation. Maxwell maintains her innocence and is appealing her 2021 sex-trafficking conviction. Johnson in his interview with NBC reiterated that pardons aren't up to him, telling the outlet, "obviously that's a decision of the president." "I won't get it in front of him," Johnson said. "That's not my lane." But, later in the interview he noted, "It's hard to put into words how evil this was, and that she orchestrated it and was a big part of it." "So, again, not my decision," he added, "but I have great pause about that, as any reasonable person would." The Trump administration for weeks has faced backlash over its handling of Epstein's case. Critics from Democratic lawmakers to prominent Republicans and slices of Trump's voter base accuse the president and other officials of not being transparent with the American people. The speaker has faced his own ongoing Epstein-related criticism, as some House Republicans have zeroed in on the Justice Department's recent review of Epstein's case and are calling for related documents to be released publicly. Democrats in Congress have piled on too. Reps. Ro Khanna, D-California, and Thomas Massie, R-Kentucky, introduced a bipartisan measure to force the Trump administration's hand in releasing the federal government's files. Also on "Meet The Press," the pair split on pardoning Maxwell. "That would be up to the president," Massie said. "But if she has information that could help us, then I think she should testify. Let's get that out there. And whatever they need to do to compel that testimony, as long as it's truthful, I would be in favor of." Khanna disagreed, saying Maxwell shouldn't receive a pardon. "Look, I agree with Congressman Massie that she should testify," the California Democrat said. "But she's been indicted twice on perjury. This is why we need the files. This is why we need independent evidence." Contributing: Bart Jansen and Aysha Bagchi, USA TODAY
The Hill
5 minutes ago
- The Hill
Prison reform laws could safely send thousands home — if they're enforced
The two of us have spent a good chunk of our lives on opposite sides of prison bars. One of us worked for 16 years in the federal Bureau of Prisons, including a stretch as acting director during the first Trump administration. The other spent 14 years in federal prison before fighting to help hundreds of thousands of incarcerated people earn their freedom and successfully reenter society. Despite these different backgrounds — or perhaps because of them — we agree on one thing: Our criminal justice system can and must do much more to enhance safety and justice for all Americans. That's why we were encouraged when, last month, the Bureau of Prisons quietly issued a new directive that will help incarcerated individuals return more quickly to their families and communities. Although we are optimistic, the devil is in the details. For this policy to succeed, it must be implemented fairly and consistently for all who qualify. The U.S. has made real progress on criminal justice over the past few decades. The crime rate has declined 61 percent since its peak in 1991. The prison population has shrunk by roughly 25 percent since 2009, and racial disparities have dropped by 40 percent. This progress came from thoughtful, bipartisan reforms. Between 2007 and 2018, 35 states passed sentencing and corrections reform laws. At the federal level, two landmark measures — the Second Chance Act and First Step Act — stand out. Signed in 2008 by President George W. Bush, the Second Chance Act funds state and local programs that help incarcerated people reenter their communities. Ten years later, Trump signed the First Step Act, which modified mandatory minimums, expanded opportunities for people to earn time credits toward early release and increased access to rehabilitative and vocational programs. Many were surprised when Trump, who had promised tougher sentences as he campaigned for office, championed the First Step Act. But he pressured Republicans in Congress to support it and enthusiastically signed it into law, calling it proof that 'America is a nation that believes in redemption.' In his second term, Trump has sent mixed signals so far. His Justice Department cut more than $500 million in state and local criminal justice grants, and Attorney General Pam Bondi rolled out new tough-on-crime policies. At the same time, Trump created a new 'pardon czar' position to advise him on presidential clemency decisions, appointing Alice Marie Johnson — who served over 20 years in federal prison before receiving clemency from Trump — to the role. The latest advancement came in June when Bureau of Prisons Director William K. Marshall III directed the bureau to fully implement both the Second Chance Act and First Step Act. Declaring 'the dawn of a new era,' Marshall promised the policy change would save money, reduce strains on corrections staff and facilities and make it easier for many incarcerated people to return home and contribute to society. This latter point is the centerpiece of the First Step Act. The act allows low-risk individuals who complete rehabilitative programs to earn 'time credits' which can be applied toward early release or to serve the remainder of their sentences in home confinement or residential reentry centers. Since its passage, the First Step Act has proven effective. A Council on Criminal Justice analysis found that individuals released under the First Step Act were 55 percent less likely to return to prison than people with similar profiles released before the law took effect. These lower recidivism rates held even among those considered higher risk by the Bureau of Prisons. Yet challenges remain. Despite receiving more than $400 million annually under the First Step Act, the Bureau of Prisons has long claimed it lacks the contract capacity to support home confinement and reentry centers. There has also been confusion about whether the First Step Act and Second Chance Act could be applied simultaneously. Both the Biden and Trump administrations initially said they could not, before allowing it. The new Bureau of Prisons policy promises to solve these issues, but its success will depend on implementation. The director's message must reach and be embraced by all corners of the system. We have seen encouraging signs thus far. This month, the Bureau of Prisons launched a task force to address logistical hurdles faced by staff — a promising step toward ensuring the policy is put into practice. Going forward, we see three top priorities. First, communication. With over 155,000 employees, the Bureau of Prisons must ensure every staff member understands this policy and why it matters. Second, training. Too often, people remain behind bars simply because staff aren't properly trained on how to apply the law. And third, accountability. Bureau of Prisons leaders must quickly address any staff who resist the changes — whether through correction or removal. In the early months of Trump's second term, we have seen America's political divides on display, from the 'big beautiful bill' to the bombing of Iran to new tariffs. Criminal justice reform should be an exception. It offers a rare opportunity for common ground — a chance to advance solutions that make our communities both safer and more just. Hugh Hurwitz worked for the Bureau of Prisons for more than 16 years, including as acting director during the first Trump administration, and is a member of the Council on Criminal Justice. Louis L. Reed, who served nearly 14 years in federal prison and later helped pass over 30 state and federal bills, including the First Step Act of 2018. He is a member of the Council on Criminal Justice's Board of Trustees.
CBS News
6 minutes ago
- CBS News
Jim speaks with Jose Javier Rodriguez about his run for Florida attorney general
Jim talks to the former democratic state senator who is running to be the next Florida attorney general. James Uthmeier, a Republican, is Florida's current attorney general. Guest: José Javier Rodriguez/D- Florida Attorney General candidate Republican leaders from 17 other states Tuesday filed a brief at the U.S. Supreme Court backing Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier's push to enforce a law targeting undocumented immigrants who enter Florida. The brief came after Uthmeier last week asked the Supreme Court to step in and at least temporarily allow enforcement of the state law after a federal district judge issued a preliminary injunction to block it. U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams in April ruled that the law likely was preempted by federal immigration authority. Uthmeier appealed the preliminary injunction, but a panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected his request for a stay of Williams' ruling. Uthmeier last week asked for the Supreme Court to issue a stay, which would effectively allow the state to enforce the law while the underlying legal battle plays out.
