Buried within the vast pages of a multi-trillion-dollar budget proposal currently advancing through the Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives lies a brief but powerful clause that could significantly limit the judiciary’s ability to compel government compliance through contempt rulings. This paragraph would weaken one of the courts’ key enforcement tools—contempt findings—against the federal government.
Although the fate of the bill remains uncertain—it recently failed a committee vote and may face opposition in both the full House and the Senate—the inclusion of this provision reveals growing anxiety among lawmakers over judicial authority as conflicts between courts and the Trump administration intensify.
Tensions reached a new high on Friday when Republican President Donald Trump lashed out at the U.S. Supreme Court after it blocked his administration from resuming swift deportations under an old wartime statute. Posting on Truth Social, Trump declared, “THE SUPREME COURT WON’T ALLOW US TO GET CRIMINALS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!”
Escalating Conflict with Lower Courts
The most contentious legal battles have emerged in the lower federal courts. One judge found that Trump administration officials may be subject to contempt after defying an order to halt deportation flights authorized under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. In another case, the administration ignored a ruling—upheld by the Supreme Court—to “facilitate” the return of a man wrongly deported to El Salvador.
There have been other incidents where the government proceeded with deportations despite judicial orders or failed to comply with judicial instructions. Dan Bongino, now serving as Trump’s deputy director of the FBI, fueled the defiance on his radio show in February when he encouraged Trump to ignore court directives. “Who’s going to arrest him? The marshals?” he asked rhetorically, before adding, “You guys know who the U.S. Marshals work for? Department of Justice.”
Administration Testing Boundaries
Despite heated rhetoric, the Trump administration has largely complied with most court rulings—especially those tied to his executive orders. Trump himself has often insisted he will follow court decisions, even as he publicly criticizes judges who oppose his policies.
Still, legal scholars note the unusually aggressive tone of the administration’s pushback. “It seems to me they are walking as close to the line as they can, and even stepping over it, in an effort to see how much they can get away with,” said Steve Vladeck, a Georgetown University law professor. “It’s what you would expect from a very clever and mischievous child.”
Mike Davis, leader of the Article III Project advocating pro-Trump judicial appointments, believes the courts’ resistance will ultimately strengthen Trump’s hand. “The more they do this, the more it’s going to anger the American people, and the chief justice is going to follow the politics on this like he always does,” Davis said.
Supreme Court Showdown and Judicial Skepticism
These tensions were on full display during an unusual Supreme Court session the day before the deportation ruling. Trump’s legal team sought to limit lower courts’ power to issue sweeping nationwide injunctions, a tactic not unique to his presidency but one that has increasingly drawn criticism. Several justices have previously questioned the frequency and scope of such injunctions.
During the session, Justice Amy Coney Barrett challenged Solicitor General D. John Sauer on whether the administration would obey an unfavorable ruling from an appeals court. “Really?” Barrett asked, highlighting the court’s concern. Sauer replied that it was standard policy at the Department of Justice to respect such rulings and assured the justices that the administration would comply.
Mounting Judicial Concerns
Some members of the judiciary have grown more vocal about the administration’s attitude toward the courts. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown-Jackson have cautioned against ignoring court orders or threatening judges. Meanwhile, Chief Justice John Roberts publicly criticized Trump’s attempt to impeach Judge James E. Boasberg, who found probable cause of contempt after the administration defied a deportation-related ruling.
Even after the Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s order requiring the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the U.S., the official White House account posted on X: “he’s NOT coming back.” Legal experts suggest this defiance could potentially lead to contempt charges.
U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis has accused the administration of acting in “bad faith” as she continues to demand updates on its efforts to comply with her ruling. While contempt proceedings against the government tend to unfold slowly and are often resolved before penalties are imposed, this case could test the limits of that tradition.
Understanding Contempt of Court
Contempt of court applies when a party disobeys a judicial order. Sanctions can include fines, civil penalties, or, in extreme cases, criminal prosecution and imprisonment. The budget provision put forth by House Republicans would significantly restrict contempt enforcement in cases involving injunctions or temporary restraining orders—the very tools used most frequently to curb Trump’s executive actions—unless plaintiffs have first posted a bond. This is uncommon in lawsuits against the government.
Yale law professor Nick Parrillo, in an in-depth review, found only 67 instances of contempt rulings being upheld against the federal government, out of over 650 cases where contempt was considered. Most were overturned by appellate courts. Still, higher courts have repeatedly signaled that a future case might withstand appeals.
David Noll, a professor at Rutgers Law School, noted, “The courts, for their part, don’t want to find out how far their authority goes, and the executive doesn’t really want to undermine the legal order because the economy and their ability to just get stuff done depends on the law.”
Exploring Uncharted Legal Territory
Some legal analysts are now questioning whether courts could appoint independent prosecutors to pursue contempt or if they’d be forced to rely on the Department of Justice, which may be reluctant to act. They also wonder whether U.S. marshals would actually arrest individuals found in contempt.
“If you get to the point of asking the marshals to arrest a contemnor, it’s truly uncharted territory,” Noll said.
There remains another avenue courts can use—civil contempt—which often leads to fines. According to Justin Levitt, a former Obama administration official now advising President Biden, civil contempt may be more effective because it bypasses the Justice Department and cannot be nullified by a presidential pardon.
“Should the courts want, they have the tools to make individuals who plan on defying the courts miserable,” Levitt said, adding that government lawyers and those executing illegal orders would face the most risk.
Beyond contempt, courts possess other ways to exert pressure. Judges can reduce the Justice Department’s credibility in future cases, potentially making it harder for the government to win. Friday’s Supreme Court order showed some justices were skeptical of the administration’s claims regarding deportations.
Furthermore, public opinion appears strongly opposed to defying court rulings. A recent Pew Research Center poll found that roughly 80 percent of Americans believe the federal government must comply with a court ruling declaring a Trump policy illegal.
Ultimately, the broader picture may be less dire than a few dramatic immigration cases suggest, according to Vladeck. “In the majority of these cases, the courts are successfully restraining the executive branch and the executive branch is abiding by their rulings,” he said.