Skirting Court Orders with Questionable Justifications
In a troubling development, researchers from the University of Michigan have highlighted a shift in the American administration's approach to court orders, alleging the increasing use of "d dubious legal arguments" to evade complying with judgments it dislikes. The strategy, termed "procedural non-compliance," is designed to challenge the judicial system, without inciting public outrage or an outright defiance that could lead to a constitutional crisis.
This risk-averse approach has been employed since President Donald Trump's second term to undermine the judiciary without incurring significant political costs, according to one of the researchers, Daniel Deacon. The administration's attempts to undermine the power of judges are amplified by their alliance with Congress, as seen in proposed legislative changes limiting the ability of judges to hold individuals in contempt of court.
In an interview, Deacon cited examples of the administration's questionable legal strategies in cases of deportation and extradition. For instance, the administration's decision to send Venezuelan nationals identified as "hostile aliens" to El Salvador through an 18th-century law was challenged, yet the administration argued that it had complied with court orders by expelling individuals before the announcement, a claim that Deacon described as having "no legal basis."
Another example is the legal contortions employed to prevent the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran wrongfully deported to his home country. In this instance, government lawyers argued that the United States had no control over an individual held by a foreign power, a claim that Deacon found illogical in light of President Trump's acknowledgment that he could bring Garcia back by simply contacting his Salvadoran counterpart.
While no federal judge has yet chosen to cite a member of the administration for contempt of court, Deacon notes that judges are cautious due to fear of pushing the administration further against the judiciary. Nevertheless, some judges have expressed frustration with the administration's tactics, as seen in a recent Massachusetts ruling where the administration was found to have ignored judicial directives and attempted to hide it through "lack of clarity."
The use of legal language allows the administration to claim compliance with court orders when that is not the case, Deacon argues. This contention raises concerns regarding the separation of powers and the rule of law, particularly with the Republican camp's recent efforts to limit the ability of judges to cite individuals for contempt of court in a proposed spending bill. If passed, these changes could weaken the judiciary's deterrent effect and undermine judicial oversight.
- The administration's strategic use of "dubious legal arguments" in cases such as deportation and extradition, as highlighted by Daniel Deacon, has raised concerns within the field of "politics" and "general news".
- Deacon's research on the administration's approach to court orders reveals that the strategy of "procedural non-compliance" is not only employed in the context of war-and-conflicts, but also in areas like crime-and-justice, such as the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
- The proposed legislative changes limiting the ability of judges to hold individuals in contempt of court, as part of policy-and-legislation discussions, have sparked debates about the potential impacts on the separation of powers and the rule of law.
