Boasberg Issues Criminal Contempt Finding In Alien Enemies Act Case

[dr_coyote]

Right. We should all just surrender, right now.

plonk

[noonm]

@travelingprincess

Am I the only one sick of waiting? It is infuriating. I cannot imagine what his family is enduring.

This is a different case than the one regarding Garcia, so a victory here would not bring Garcia back.

More specifically, Boasberg asked the Trump DOJ to provide information on whether they complied with his order to halt deportation flights back in March. The Trump DOJ refused to do so, leading Boasberg to reasonably infer that they in fact did not comply with his order. This is the sanction for that defiance.

[rmwarnick]

So bring back all the detainees within a week or there will be an arrest warrant for Little Marco. Sounds good to me.

[seamus42]

I read a lot of the order – unless I’m misreading, they don’t even have to return them to “purge contempt.” Just give them habeas hearings to challenge their detention, even if it happens in El Salvador, apparently.

[generalsternwood]

It is like UNHCR helicopters landed across the country, delivering much needed Spine Aid to key institutions.

[noonm]

@dave48

Great! Now how, exactly, is he going to be able to enforce this conviction if the Trump administration refuses to comply?

I’ve been saying that there is no shortage of former DOJ prosecutors and FBI agents fired or forced out by the Trump regime who would probably have no issues being deputized by the Court for prosecution and enforcement actions. Just need to find a willing local or state jail to accommodate the Trump scofflaws and we’re good to go.

[bcgister]

@seamus42

I read a lot of the order – unless I’m misreading, they don’t even have to return them to “purge contempt.” Just give them habeas hearings to challenge their detention, even if it happens in El Salvador, apparently.

Thanks for the clarification.

[dave48]

@dr_coyote

Right. We should all just surrender, right now.

This isn’t about surrendering, it’s about identifying the full scope of the problem we face. America has elected a mobster to head the federal government and court orders are unlikely to fix that. Trump really doesn’t care about federal court rulings and I’m really not sure he can be made to care about them, but we’ll see.

[jonbroholm]

How about the bailiff?

[dave48]

What’s he going to do?

[known_thespian]

The judge could also refer the attorneys to the disciplinary authority for whichever state issued their licenses; I don’t think TCF could do much about that.

[irasdad]

“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,” the opinion reads.

[jonbroholm]

Ok, maybe not the bailiff exactly, but when a judge remands someone to jail, law enforcement officers take them there.

[dave48]

Knowing Trump, he’d probably just issue an executive order stating that DOJ attorneys don’t need to be licensed. Problem solved. If you have absolutely no regard for law or precedent, there’s no limit to how flippant you can be in order to get around these issues.

[dave48]

All federal law enforcement officers work for Trump, so…

[callmeeric]

@irasdad

“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,” the opinion reads.

Incoming Steven Miller spin should be vomitous.

[noonm]

@dave48

@dr_coyote

Right. We should all just surrender, right now.

This isn’t about surrendering, it’s about identifying the full scope of the problem we face. America has elected a mobster to head the federal government and court orders are unlikely to fix that. Trump really doesn’t care about federal court rulings and I’m really not sure he can be made to care about them, but we’ll see.

We really haven’t had to use it in a while because we’ve never had a President so openly defiant of the Judiciary, but the Courts have their own authority to enforce their actions. Here’s a good explainer:

Contempt of court is classified as either civil or criminal depending on whether a court seeks to compel compliance with its orders or punish obstruction of justice. When it comes to criminal contempt, the executive really does hold a veto over contempt proceedings. While Supreme Court caselaw and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure recognize the courts’ authority to appoint a private attorney to prosecute contempt, the president may pardon the contemnor, rendering the prosecution an academic exercise.

Civil contempt is different. The Supreme Court has long held that “a pardon cannot stop” courts from punishing cases of civil contempt. And while the marshals have traditionally enforced civil contempt orders, the courts have the power to deputize others to step in if they refuse to do so.

This authority is recognized in an obscure provision of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which govern proceedings in federal trial courts. Rule 4.1 specifies how certain types of “process” — the legal term for orders that command someone to appear in court — are to be served on the party to which they are directed. The rule begins in section (a) by instructing that, as a general matter, process “must be served by a United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed for that purpose.”

The next section, Rule 4.1(b), is entitled, “Enforcing Orders: Committing for Civil Contempt.” It sets some geographical limits for where “[a]n order committing a person for civil contempt of a decree or injunction” may be served based on the federal vs. state nature of the underlying lawsuit. But it does not say who may enforce such an order, and it never modifies the general rule that process may be served by a marshal, deputy marshal or person specially appointed for that purpose. Thus, by its plain terms, Rule 4.1 contemplates that the court may appoint individuals other than the marshals to enforce civil contempt orders.

Criminal contempt is problematic because Trump can pardon any offenders, which is not the case for civil contempt. However, the courts have the power to appoint someone other than the default entities (e.g. DOJ prosecutors or US Marshalls) to prosecute or enforce their orders.

[dave48]

@noonm

I’ve been saying that there is no shortage of former DOJ prosecutors and FBI agents fired or forced out by the Trump regime who would probably have no issues being deputized by the Court…

You may be right, but the judge better deputize an army of them because Trump never goes quietly. If January 6 taught us anything, it’s that he actually enjoys a riot. What’s more, these “deputies” will likely know that they’re at high risk of being “accidentally” deported to an El Salvadorian prison, which is a thought they might find discouraging.

[robg]

They need to prep an argument that you cannot pardon people for crimes that you ordered, since that would be “being a judge in your own case”.

If I see a judge throw up their hands and go whoops, nothing I can do! I’m going to be fucking livid.

[generalsternwood]

There’s a fine line between shocking people out of the normalcy bias that expresses itself in the reassurance that “this can’t happen here,” and making strategic objections to putting all our energy into half-measures when more serious ones are needed.

That said, I think that in the face of Boasberg’s courage, to jump to “this is bound to fail because of…” is counterproductive. Surely, this is better than having him avoid the confrontation, à la the Supreme Court’s mealy-mouthed hairsplitting?

The rule of law still has allies in all sorts of places, and the more areas in which the administration is resisted, the more friction gets introduced, the better the chances this thing can be stopped.