Latest news with #courtOrders
The Independent
21-07-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
What order? Trump team ignoring 1 in 3 major judicial rulings against them, analysis finds
Multiple federal court judges have accused the Trump administration of deliberately defying court orders by being slow to respond, misrepresenting facts in filings, and not taking prompt action as President Donald Trump continues an unprecedented campaign to expand his executive authority. In an analysis of 165 court orders filed against the Trump administration, the Washington Post found that it was accused of resisting court orders in at least 57 of those cases – approximately 34 percent. Since taking office, Trump has sought to implement his agenda as swiftly as possible, particularly in cases involving his immigration policies and attempts to drastically reduce the federal workforce. Despite multiple district court judges issuing temporary injunctions to stop the administration from deporting immigrants without due process or sending them to third countries they've never been to, filings indicate the administration has continued its efforts. This has, most notably, occurred in the case involving Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran immigrant who was previously granted permission to remain in the U.S. by a court. The administration inadvertently sent Abrego Garcia to a maximum security prison in El Salvador, under accusations that he was a gang member. Multiple courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, ordered the administration to 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia's return, yet officials made no swift efforts – leading to a judge's admonishment. 'Defendants have failed to respond in good faith, and their refusal to do so can only be viewed as willful and intentional noncompliance,' Judge Paula Xinis, appointed by former president Barack Obama, said after the administration failed to provide updates on how it was returning Abrego Garcia. It was just one of several immigration cases in which judges have raised concerns about the administration not following orders. In April, D.C. Judge James Boasberg, appointed by Obama, admonished the administration for 'willful disobedience of judicial orders' after they did not comply with his order to turn around planes carrying dozens of people to a prison in El Salvador. 'The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders — especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it,' Boasberg wrote. Accusations against the administration have also occurred in cases involving the federal workforce. Also in April, Judge Amy Berman Jackson, appointed by Obama, raised 'significant grounds for concern' that the administration was deliberately disobeying her order to keep more than 1,000 employees with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. 'There is reason to believe that the defendants simply spent the days immediately following the Circuit's relaxation of the Order dressing their RIF in new clothes, and that they are thumbing their nose at both this Court and the Court of Appeals,' Jackson wrote. The Independent has asked the White House for comment. Courts can hold the administration accountable with contempt hearings for noncompliance but they're traditionally slow to bring such action because many of the rulings are being appealed. Hearings in which a party is found noncompliant can result in fines or imprisonment. But the U.S. Marshal Service, a federal law enforcement agency tasked with serving as security for the federal judiciary, can serve subpoenas or warrants as well as make arrests when indicated by a court. But some experts raised concerns that, under Trump's authority, the Marshal Service would not carry-out those orders. Trump and his officials consistently lash out against judges who rule against them, misrepresenting them as Democratic and far-left extremists. A vast majority of the accusations have been brought by Democratic-appointed judges in immigration cases, but a handful of Republican appointees, including two judges tapped by Trump, have also either accused or raised questions about the administration's compliance. Jessica Roth, a former federal prosecutor and professor at Cardozo School of Law, told The Hill in April that it was 'deeply distressing' to see lawyers for the government act this way. 'This is extremely unusual behavior, both from the administration and from the lawyers representing the administration in court, and it's deeply distressing to see the behavior from these Department of Justice lawyers, which is not the norm for how Department of Justice lawyers conduct themselves in court,' Roth told The Hill.
Fox News
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Ignore outrageous attacks on Trump's DOJ champion. He belongs on the bench
In recent weeks, some public commentary has accused the Department of Justice of defying court orders and insinuated that Emil Bove's confirmation will undermine the rule of law. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Department of Justice follows court orders—even when those orders are legally unsound or deeply flawed. And Emil is the most capable and principled lawyer I have ever known. His legal acumen is extraordinary, and his moral clarity is above reproach. The Senate should swiftly confirm him to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. This administration has repeatedly been targeted with sweeping, overreaching injunctions, often issued by ideologically aligned judges in defiance of settled law—including orders of the Supreme Court. Time and again, these rulings have been reversed on appeal, and easily so. The pattern is familiar by now: aggressive district court orders grab headlines, only to be walked back when subjected to the slightest judicial scrutiny. Despite this consistent trend, the persistent narrative in the media and in the legal community is that it is the Department of Justice that ignores courts. That is plainly wrong. Disagreements over interpretation do not constitute defiance, any more than does filing an appeal. And, histrionics aside, good-faith disputes over timing and implementation of court orders do not represent insubordination—especially given the very difficult and novel problems presented by implementing the unprecedentedly overbroad and vague court orders imposed on this administration. The Department of Justice invariably complies with court orders no matter how much it disagrees with the underlying reasoning or the egregiousness of the judicial error. The appellate process has always been the means of securing relief from an erroneous order, and it still is. You will search in vain for any critique of district judges who abuse their power and issue baseless injunctions in the editorial pages of The New York Times, CNN, or even the WSJ—even where those injunctions are reversed or stayed on appeal. The same commentators who foment anger over the Department of Justice's good-faith efforts to comply with legally unsound court orders are silent when Article III judges overreach and issue rulings that interfere with the President's authority and undermine the rule of law. That brings me to my friend and colleague, Emil. The dedicated lawyers of the Department of Justice work tirelessly to comply with court orders and to promote the rule of law. There is no finer example of that dedication than Emil. In a thankless job, Emil expects excellence and courage from every lawyer in the Department, no matter the opposition faced. He pushes our dedicated lawyers to meet the moment and the mission of defending this administration against those who seek to block President Donald Trump from fulfilling his promises to the American people. And he consistently requires the highest level of integrity from all Department employees. Unfortunately, but unsurprisingly, the media has recently amplified slanderous attacks on Emil's character based on a foundation of selective leaks, misleading reporting, and falsehoods. I am taking this opportunity to clear up a few of those misconceptions. First, as to the termination of the leaker, it was Attorney General Pam Bondi and I who decided to terminate his employment. It was not Emil's decision. And contrary to media spin, the employee was terminated for failing to defend his client—the United States of America—in open court; he was not dismissed for admitting an error in court. In his courtroom statements, the leaker distanced himself from the Department's position and attempted to undermine the credibility of his own client. That is not zealous representation. That is an unethical dereliction of duty, which no client should be required to countenance. Moreover, Emil has never encouraged lawyers or anyone else to act in defiance of a court order. There was no order to violate at the time of the alleged statements. No injunctive relief had been granted—oral or written. No directive was issued to reverse any executive action. These facts are not in dispute, not even by the leaker. And most critically, after Judge Boasberg did issue an order in the relevant case, the Department fastidiously complied. That is not speculation. That is the explicit position taken by the leaker himself, who signed the government's brief affirming the United States' compliance on March 25, 2025. The same kind of distortions are being used to attack the Department's lawful dismissal of the irreparably flawed case against New York Mayor Eric Adams. That decision was reviewed and approved by Department leadership and grounded in sound legal judgment. The judge agreed, granting the government's motion to dismiss. That should end the conversation. But for those who insist on rehashing internal dissent and resignations, it should be obvious that disagreements within the Department do not render a decision unlawful or unethical. To the contrary, Emil's integrity was displayed when he himself argued the case in favor of dismissal, even as his former colleagues in SDNY retreated. Before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Emil attested what those lucky enough to work with him already know to be true: he believes deeply in the rule of law, and in the importance of court orders. And what he has done time and again over the course of his career is bring rigor, integrity, and decency to his work. Emil has the backbone for hard cases, the restraint to wield judicial authority judiciously, and the intellect to master complexity. He will decide cases fairly. He will apply the law as written. He will not bend to political pressure. And that is exactly the kind of judge our country needs. Emil is a dedicated public servant, an exemplary lawyer, and a person of quiet strength and deep character. The Senate should reject the smear campaign and vote to confirm him to the Third Circuit. Justice demands nothing less.
The Guardian
24-06-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
DoJ leader suggested defying courts over deportations, whistleblower says
Emil Bove, the department's principal associate deputy attorney general, who Donald Trump nominated for the US court of appeals for the third circuit, reportedly said the Department of Justice 'would need to consider telling the courts 'fuck you'' when it came to orders blocking the deportation of undocumented people. Former attorney at the justice department, Erez Reuveni, claimed Bove said the agency should violate court orders. In a whistleblower letter to members of Congress first obtained by the New York Times, Reuveni painted the scene of a lawless justice department willingly to defy the courts and fire the people who stood in their way. 'Mr. Reuveni was stunned by Bove's statement because, to Mr. Reuveni's knowledge, no one in DOJ leadership - in any Administration – had ever suggested the Department of Justice could blatantly ignore court orders, especially with a 'fuck you,'' says the letter, written by his lawyers at the Government Accountability Project. The comments came in the context of Trump invoking the Alien Enemies Act to deport people on removal flights in mid-March, the letter contends, after Bove 'stressed to all in attendance that the planes needed to take off no matter what'. At the time of Bove's alleged comments, Reuveni, who was in the meeting, said he was in disbelief. But in the three weeks that followed, his disbelief became 'a relic of a different time' as the department undermined the courts and rule of law. In three separate cases Reuveni was involved in, he found 'internal efforts of DOJ and White House leadership to defy (court orders) through lack of candor, deliberate delay and disinformation'. Reuveni was a career attorney who had served across multiple administrations for 15 years in the department, including the first Trump administration. Reuveni says he directly witnessed and reported to his superiors a host of misconduct, including 'DOJ officials undermining the rule of law by ignoring court orders; DOJ officials presenting 'legal' arguments with no basis in law; high-ranking DOJ and DHS officials misrepresenting facts presented before courts; and DOJ officials directing Mr. Reuveni to misrepresent facts in one of these cases in violation of legal and ethical duties as an officer of the court'. Reuveni had notified the court in the case of Kilmar Ábrego García, the Maryland man erroneously deported to El Salvador who has since returned to the US, that Ábrego García's deportation had been a 'mistake'. He said he refused his superiors' directive to file a brief to the court that would have misrepresented the facts of the case. He was subsequently put on administrative leave and then terminated on 11 April. Trump administration officials have said Reuveni didn't 'vigorously' or 'zealously' defend his client, the United States. 'Discouraging clients from engaging in illegal conduct is an important part of the role of lawyer,' the whistleblower letter says. 'Mr. Reuveni tried to do so and was thwarted, threatened, fired, and publicly disparaged for both doing his job and telling the truth to the court.' Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion Bove is set for a confirmation hearing on his judicial nomination before the Senate judiciary committee on Wednesday, where the whistleblower's claims are sure to enter into questioning. The White House and justice department have denied Reuveni's claims, according to the New York Times. Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general and Bove's boss, called Reuveni's accounts 'falsehoods purportedly made by a disgruntled former employee and then leaked to the press in violation of ethical obligations' and questioned the timing of its release ahead of Bove's confirmation hearing.
Yahoo
08-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
House budget provision exempts executive branch from following court orders
A two legged stool cannot stand. Neither can a democracy with only two branches. I read with horror the Journal Sentinel article, 'House bill could neutralize court orders' (June 2). In the 1,000+ page 'big beautiful bill' is a provision that would exempt the executive branch from following a court's orders. This means they would be above the law! The courts would live out a Shakespeare quote 'being full of sound and fury but signifying nothing.' There would be no guardrails or accountability for the executive branch; one leg on our stool of democracy would be gone. Regardless of your political affiliation, this should concern you. I'm troubled that another leg of our democratic stool, the legislative branch, are not up in arms about this provision, but though their timidity, ignorance or fear have not stood up and provided a strong statement that this shall not pass. Letters: Real issue behind need for retail lockboxes ignored. Don't make excuses. We the people need to demand that our elected representatives do what is right for all Americans. We can disagree and debate, but we all live here. When it is no longer 'we the people' but an elite group of self interested people making the rules, America as we and the whole world know it will be gone. Glenn Luedtke, Franklin Here are some tips to get your views shared with your friends, family, neighbors and across our state: Please include your name, street address and daytime phone. Generally, we limit letters to 200 words. Cite sources of where you found information or the article that prompted your letter. Be civil and constructive, especially when criticizing. Avoid ad hominem attacks, take issue with a position, not a person. We cannot acknowledge receipt of submissions. We don't publish poetry, anonymous or open letters. Each writer is limited to one published letter every two months. All letters are subject to editing. Write: Letters to the editor, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 330 E. Kilbourn Avenue, Suite 500, Milwaukee, WI, 53202. Fax: (414)-223-5444. E-mail: jsedit@ or submit using the form that can be found on the on the bottom of this page. This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Congress is absent, guided by timidity, ignorance and fear | Letters
Yahoo
08-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
House budget provision exempts executive branch from following court orders
A two legged stool cannot stand. Neither can a democracy with only two branches. I read with horror the Journal Sentinel article, 'House bill could neutralize court orders' (June 2). In the 1,000+ page 'big beautiful bill' is a provision that would exempt the executive branch from following a court's orders. This means they would be above the law! The courts would live out a Shakespeare quote 'being full of sound and fury but signifying nothing.' There would be no guardrails or accountability for the executive branch; one leg on our stool of democracy would be gone. Regardless of your political affiliation, this should concern you. I'm troubled that another leg of our democratic stool, the legislative branch, are not up in arms about this provision, but though their timidity, ignorance or fear have not stood up and provided a strong statement that this shall not pass. Letters: Real issue behind need for retail lockboxes ignored. Don't make excuses. We the people need to demand that our elected representatives do what is right for all Americans. We can disagree and debate, but we all live here. When it is no longer 'we the people' but an elite group of self interested people making the rules, America as we and the whole world know it will be gone. Glenn Luedtke, Franklin Here are some tips to get your views shared with your friends, family, neighbors and across our state: Please include your name, street address and daytime phone. Generally, we limit letters to 200 words. Cite sources of where you found information or the article that prompted your letter. Be civil and constructive, especially when criticizing. Avoid ad hominem attacks, take issue with a position, not a person. We cannot acknowledge receipt of submissions. We don't publish poetry, anonymous or open letters. Each writer is limited to one published letter every two months. All letters are subject to editing. Write: Letters to the editor, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 330 E. Kilbourn Avenue, Suite 500, Milwaukee, WI, 53202. Fax: (414)-223-5444. E-mail: jsedit@ or submit using the form that can be found on the on the bottom of this page. This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Congress is absent, guided by timidity, ignorance and fear | Letters
