The issue of what would occur if the Trump administration blatantly disregards a federal court ruling has loomed over the United States since President Donald Trump’s second term commenced. Should such a situation arise, it would lead to a constitutional crisis, a crisis which now seems imminent.
On Saturday, Trump made a declaration asserting his authority to deport Venezuelan nationals he claims are affiliated with a criminal gang called Tren de Aragua. He indicates that these individuals could be promptly removed under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a statute invoked only three times in U.S. history, the last instance being during World War II.
Trump’s assertion is quite questionable. The Alien Enemies Act allows the president to order the expulsion of all citizens from a foreign country when there is a “declared war” with that nation or if there is a “threatened or actual invasion or predatory incursion” by any foreign state against the U.S.
The United States is not engaged in warfare with Venezuela, nor has the Venezuelan government attempted to invade or threaten the U.S.
Shortly after Trump’s announcement, on that same Saturday evening, federal Judge James Boasberg issued two orders that temporarily stalled its implementation. The first is a temporary restraining order aimed at preventing any deportations under Trump’s declaration until Boasberg has sufficient time to conduct a hearing and decide on the case.
The second order designates this case, known as J.G.G. v. Trump, as a class action related to “all noncitizens in U.S. custody” affected by Trump’s proclamation. This order prohibits the government from “removing members of such class (not otherwise subject to removal) pursuant to the Proclamation for 14 days or until further Order of the Court.”
This situation brings us to the potential constitutional crisis. During a hearing on Saturday regarding this case, the plaintiffs’ lawyers informed Boasberg that two planes carrying Venezuelans deported under the proclamation were “in the air.” Boasberg subsequently ordered that “those people need to be returned to the United States.” However, he also acknowledged that once the planes landed and the passengers disembarked, he would no longer have the jurisdiction to mandate their return.
On Monday morning, the plaintiffs’ legal team referenced publicly available flight data and news reports suggesting the Trump administration permitted these planes to land and unload their passengers after Boasberg issued his directive. If true, this would imply that the Trump administration disobeyed the order and could be subject to contempt of court.
In a related case, Chehab v. Noem, it seems the federal government may have deported Dr. Rasha Alawieh, a Lebanese national and faculty member at Brown University’s medical school, in violation of a court order requiring a 48-hour notice prior to her removal. However, details in this case are rapidly changing, as two of her attorneys have recently withdrawn.
For its part, the Justice Department claims that Alawieh was deported after federal authorities discovered “sympathetic photos and videos” related to the terrorist organization Hezbollah on her phone.
There is also some ambiguity surrounding the timing of the flights in both cases. With the Venezuelan deportations, the plaintiffs are primarily seeking Boasberg to clarify whether the flights landed and passengers were discharged after his order was issued. It’s also possible that these individuals were deported under some other legal authority, which would mean Boasberg’s order would not be applicable to them.
Nonetheless, even if it is determined that no illegal deportations occurred, the government must comply with court rulings against it, including temporary orders pending a judicial review on whether the government acted unlawfully.
What actions can be taken if Trump defies a court order?
The Trump administration contends that Boasberg overstepped his authority with his rulings and refers to the purported Hezbollah connection to justify its actions in Dr. Alawieh’s situation. However, it is uncertain whether the merits of either case are pertinent at this early stage of litigation. Generally, if a party disputes a temporary restraining order, the correct approach is to await the judge’s full hearing on the case to request that the order not be extended. If the judge decides otherwise, that ruling can be appealed to a higher court.
However, a party cannot simply choose to ignore a court order based on personal beliefs about its validity.
Typically, failing to comply with a court order can result in being held in contempt of court, which may lead to fines, imprisonment, or other penalties. Nevertheless, it remains unclear whether such a contempt order could be enforced if Trump chooses to disregard the judiciary.
As Alexander Hamilton noted in the Federalist Papers, the courts possess “neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.” Federal court orders, including contempt orders, are enforced by the U.S. Marshals Service, a law enforcement agency within the Executive Branch. Therefore, Trump could potentially instruct the Marshals not to enforce any court order against his administration.
If that occurs, few legal avenues would remain to compel Trump to adhere to the law. The most obvious recourse for a president who violates serious legal statutes and refuses to comply with court orders would be impeachment. But even if a Republican-controlled House would agree to impeach Trump — which is quite unlikely — it would require 67 votes in the Senate to remove him. The Senate previously failed to gather 67 votes to declare Trump ineligible for the presidency after he incited an insurrection against the U.S. Capitol in 2020.
For the time being, the J.G.G. case is accelerating rapidly, and it remains to be seen whether the Trump administration can legitimately justify its actions. If it turns out the administration is intent on flouting court orders it disagrees with, it may signal that the legal system has exhausted its means to hold Donald Trump accountable.
