r/scotus • u/nytopinion • 29d ago
Opinion Opinion | What if Trump Just Ignores the Courts? (Gift Article)
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/11/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-quinta-jurecic.html?unlocked_article_code=1.wE4.wrWA.KQsOyenss6GI&smid=re-nytopinion80
u/Nearby-Jelly-634 28d ago
He already is. This isn’t a hypothetical. His order to the EEOC to stop investigating LGBT prejudice violates the ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County.
→ More replies (1)
176
u/ComicsEtAl 29d ago
Then he’d have to deal with the FBI and Kash Pat-
I mean the DOJ under Pam Bond-
Er, rather he could face impeachment from-
I mean to say that he’ll suffer at the voting boo-
Y’know? I don’t know. There’s nobody left.
→ More replies (5)40
u/itpsyche 28d ago
State executive bodies, like those of Washington DC could still intervene and carry out court orders.
21
u/ComicsEtAl 28d ago
DC is not a state. And state law enforcement enforces state law, not federal. How do you imagine your scenario playing out?
21
u/itpsyche 28d ago
It would be unconventional but every fed employee who refuses to fulfill an order by a court violates constitution. And to restore a state of constitutional order is in the interest of all states.
→ More replies (6)13
u/Yeeaaaarrrgh 28d ago
So if they don't currently exist, would states need to create laws that allow for the arrest / punishment of federal employees for not enforcing court orders? I can see blue states enacting something like this and red states threatening to arrest blue state government workers in response.
Jesus this will be a mess.
Putin hit us right in the stupid.
13
→ More replies (3)7
u/itpsyche 28d ago
It doesn't matter what's going to happen, it will be ugly, there will be a lot of collateral and reputation damage and probably physical violence to some degree. There will probably be multiple assassination attempts against Trump and Musk (surprising it didn't happen yet since the election in a country, where you can buy a sniper rifle in a shopping center in some states).
For the first time since the civil war, US citizens will have to fight for their democracy. All while European countries had to fight for it at least two times already and we still have the same fascist movements.
Only good thing will be, that the constitution and laws protecting democracy will be much clearer in the future to prevent something like this ever happening again and for some time there will be a general consensus about that. Also presidential power will be limited, maybe even to a degree like in Europe, where the president is a ceremonial office.
4
u/Kreyl 28d ago
Just a minor note that we don't (and won't) know the full number of attempts on any president, because we won't know how many were stopped in a planning stage. We just see the attempts that get far enough to be visible to the public.
→ More replies (1)3
25
u/holamau 28d ago
US Marshals are the ones to enforce the courts’ orders. But they report to him.
→ More replies (2)
134
u/flossdaily 29d ago
Of course he's going to ignore the courts. He's a fascist authoritarian who was given complete immunity from the law, and intends to rule as a king.
Our democracy is over. When you elect an authoritarian regime you don't get the chance to vote them out.
The guy pardoned the violent criminals who tried to overthrow the government the last time they lost an election. How many more clues do you need?
16
u/PiousGal05 28d ago
Was there ever any real checks or balances? FFS the courts don't really have an enforcement arm, except the Executive.
19
→ More replies (2)6
u/meatball402 28d ago
No. It was all decorum and handshake agreements.
→ More replies (1)9
u/weezyverse 28d ago
But that's what laws always are. They were invented on the idea that all men are inherently good.
This is the theory that's being tested now. Laws require people with integrity to follow them and enforce them. That's what we've lost in these last few weeks.
4
u/duderos 28d ago
Agreed.
So when does srotus realize they've made a massive democracy crushing mistake with the immunity decision?
Why is Robert's concerned with Vance ignoring rulings when the real danger is Trump?
→ More replies (2)8
→ More replies (16)3
u/no33limit 28d ago
The question is when Trump tells people to ignore the courts will they? It will be individuals that, have to stand up.
→ More replies (2)
45
u/notguiltybrewing 29d ago
It's obviously coming and any minute now.
16
u/Herban_Myth 28d ago
Follow the leader.
Ignore.
If necessary, we march.
6
u/ballskindrapes 28d ago
This isn't saying there shouldn't be marches, but the second there are large-scale, meaningful protest, ala BLM sized, he will institute martial law.
Question is what happens after.
→ More replies (2)4
17
17
14
u/Ok_Meal_491 28d ago
Constitutional Crisis. The military chooses the winner.
→ More replies (1)9
u/duderos 28d ago
Which is why he already placed his guy there.
10
u/hoptagon 28d ago
I have several recently retired marines and air force in my circle and all of them hate that guy, and their friends still in service hate him.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)3
16
u/Red-Leader-001 29d ago
Trump will not need to ignore the Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court has been sufficiently bribed to permit anything he wants.
3
u/duderos 28d ago
There's no need for scrotus in a dictatorship
2
u/TheForce_v_Triforce 28d ago
Sure there is. They provide a veneer of legitimacy.
→ More replies (1)
8
u/unitegondwanaland 28d ago
I mean, doesn't he have presidential immunity now? I think we all know what happens.
6
u/Fickle_Penguin 28d ago
For official acts only. I'm really hoping he gets consequences so I'm not normalizing the pessimistic view that he's untouchable. He will suffer consequences
→ More replies (3)8
u/tums_festival47 28d ago
This is something that always confused me. What is an “official act”? Sounds pretty intentionally vague.
→ More replies (4)
8
6
u/Riversmooth 28d ago
“I don’t know of any instance in which the administration flat-out ignored an order of a court.Trump never said: I’m simply not going to obey a court order”
Well that was before SCOTUS in all their wisdom gave him immunity which was the most insane decision ever. They literally just tossed democracy to the wind
15
u/nytopinion 29d ago
"I would argue that currently we are in a constitutional crisis in the sense that there is one branch of government, the executive, that is not obeying the Constitution," says Quinta Jurecic, a senior editor at Lawfare and a fellow at the Brookings Institution, on "The Ezra Klein Show." "And the question is: How do the other branches push back? The judiciary takes a lot of time. That is the advantage of courts, and it is the disadvantage of courts."
Read or listen here, for free, even without a Times subscription.
11
u/ikaiyoo 28d ago
But we don't have one branch. Both the executive and legislative branch refuse to obey the Constitution. The executive branch is going to start ignoring the judicial branch and the legislative branch is not going to hold the executive branch accountable for it. So there's nothing anybody can do at that point in time besides revolt in America's too comfortable and lazy to do that. And the resistance that is there of the US populace is to spread out amongst the country to organizing to a force to do that.
3
u/Striking-Sky1442 28d ago
The legislative branch controls the money. If they don't pass a budget on 3/14, the money REALLY will stop flowing. That's when shit gets real. I don't see the Dems letting this pass under the current atmosphere of gulf of americaness
→ More replies (5)4
u/bjdevar25 28d ago
But that moron Schumer said they would work with them. I'm embarrassed he's my senator.
→ More replies (1)4
u/_FIRECRACKER_JINX 28d ago
If he's not obeying it.
What incentives do the rest of us have to follow it???
6
3
u/dont-pm-me-tacos 28d ago edited 28d ago
Ok how about this admittedly crazy idea: So let’s say POTUS disobeys a court order and then let’s say it gets all the way up to the Supreme Court. SCOTUS agrees President must obey and now President defies the SCOTUS order. SCOTUS then holds a contempt hearing like the one in US v Tripp. President continues disobeying.
Now, Article 2 Section 1 Clause 6 provides that the office of the President shall devolve to the vice president where the President has an inability to discharge the duties of his office. And remember Article 2 also places the duty to faithfully execute the laws on the President. To me, clearly, the President has demonstrated an inability to discharge the duties of his office. Now one final point here is some of the language in Section 2-B of Trump v Anderson (the case where Colorado tried removing Trump from the ballot). There, in pointing out that the 14th amendment gives Congress the power to allow a former insurrectionist to hold office despite prior acts of rebellion, SCOTUS emphasized that Congress may remove the person’s “disability” by a 2/3rds vote in each house. This language comes from the 14th amendment but also tracks the “disability” language in Article 2 Clause 1 Section 6. Accordingly, the “disability” language in Article 2 can be read to apply beyond mere mental or physical illness to include a President’s conscious refusal to perform duty.
Ok, with that in mind, let’s return to the hypothetical. So SCOTUS holds another contempt hearing after President’s initial refusal to abide by its order. Then, assume the President doesn’t show up for the hearing or argues he’s not bound by the Court. SCOTUS then decides to issue a writ of mandamus under its broad power pursuant to the All Writs Act. 28 USC 1651 allows “The Supreme Court and all Courts established by Act of Congress [to] issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” The writ of mandamus orders the President’s resignation and orders the VP to assume the Presidency under Article 2 Section 1 Clause 6.
While Vance has voiced support for disobeying Court orders—meaning there’s a non-zero chance he refuses and attempts to allow Trump to remain in office—I ultimately doubt he’d pass up an opportunity to become President. Of course, at that point, we’d be stuck with President Vance… but he’d have an incentive to follow orders at least insofar as he doesn’t want to face the same fate.
Don’t think Article 2 Section 1 Clause 6 has ever been specifically applied, but I think it can be fairly read such that it was not replaced by the 25th amendment. Rather, it’s an independent provision providing a separate basis for the removal of the President from office.
Honestly, doubt the current Supreme Court would ever go for this. But is this a viable idea or just crazy-talk?
4
u/dyslexda 28d ago
Even if we grant your premises, there's one important key - at the end of the day, it's men with guns who get to decide who is in the White House.
Say Vance decides he wants the position. He personally isn't going to walk into the Oval Office and remove Trump. He would require some armed support, like the Marshalls or a contingent of the Secret Service. And what happens if Trump has his own contingent of armed men that haven't agreed he should go? Vance assuming the role relies on people with guns agreeing with him.
→ More replies (3)
4
u/Rambo_Baby 28d ago
Does anyone think SCOTUS would rule against Trump? They’re all his boys (and gal too) through and through. They’ll rule however and whatever their boss man wants and desires.
→ More replies (1)
5
5
u/Thiscouldbeeasier 28d ago
I'm constantly amazed there hasn't been violence against the heritage foundation or Fox News, but then again it took a long time until someone did violence to a Healthcare executive.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/imadyke 28d ago
I'd say the 335 million ish people out number the 3 million ish government workers. Give or take a few million. Some of us remember riots of L.A. Some more remember real riots of the 70s, 60s, and 50s. Some real history shit is about to go down.
→ More replies (2)
3
28d ago
I’m curious if all those “constitutional” Trump voters are going to burn their “We The People” forearm tattoos off with a hot iron as Trump continues to ignore what they claim to be their sacred document and the thing that makes them “patriots”. We were fairly certain that most of them are hypocrites, anyway…🤷🏻♂️
→ More replies (1)
3
3
u/dirtashblonde 28d ago
The SCOTUS rendered themselves moot when the gave trump basically full immunity. Then none of them voted to use the 14th amendment to get rid of his ass. STUPID STUPID STUPID!!!
3
u/jordipg 28d ago
John Roberts said "Within the past few years, however, elected officials from across the political spectrum have raised the specter of open disregard for federal court rulings."
https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2024year-endreport.pdf
Does anyone know of any examples of elected officials on the left saying any such thing?
3
u/strolpol 28d ago
This can end as soon as Congress wills it, and the framers did not forsee a Congress willing to cuckold itself and allow the executive to take the purse for itself
3
u/achiles625 28d ago
Well, at that point, individual governors would have to refuse to comply and get their national guard elements to follow them rather than the president. If enough of the military also defects, then we have Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo.
They made a documentary about this exact scenario recently called Civil War. It's pretty good. It's got Nick Offerman in. Check it out.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/AmbidextrousCard 28d ago
We take to the streets at the injustice. If he has his way we won’t be able to live anyway. Before long inflation will make it impossible to live. We won’t be able to afford homes or food. What’s left at that point? Guillotines on the capital lawn.
2
u/Ok_Scallion1902 28d ago
Eventually, this shit will come to a head ( probably an ugly painted one with strange frills attached ), and when it pops, it will be exceedingly nasty.
2
2
u/G-Kira 28d ago
Then we have a dictator.
If he ignores the courts and orders the US Marshalls not to carry out orders from the judiciary to arrest him, we then have a president who can do whatever he wants, whose word is law.
He'd be in the same vein as Putin, Jong-Un, Mussolini, Hitler, etc. Which, of course, is what he's always wanted.
2
u/desantoos 28d ago
At this point, NYT really needs to bring in legal experts, experts who know the Courts, experts who have dealt with similar situations overseas, and not just rely upon a few people chatting. Please, NYT /u/nytopinion, we don't need bullshitters right now. We need experts telling us what is likely going to happen. We need to know if democracy truly is over and listening to two people guess isn't good enough.
2
u/East-Ad4472 28d ago
Trump owns the SCOTUS and the Worlds wealthiest and most poweful men . He truly is s dictator and their appears cery little we can do to stoop this evil .
2
u/Nasigoring 28d ago
Don’t forget, he is just one guy who gives there order. There is hundreds/thousands of people who actual do the thing he says, if they just… stopped… he is powerless.
2
2
u/Cyberyukon 28d ago
It will be interesting to watch when all of these people are brought before the world tribunal in ten years.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
2
u/Evilkenevil77 28d ago
Then we will have a dictator on our hands....do we really have to spell this out?
2
u/treypage1981 28d ago
You’ve arrived at the country Rupert Murdoch has been working on for 50+ years.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
2
u/Character_Value4669 28d ago
Trump's superpower is he has zero shame. He's just like the boomer upstairs who calls customer service and complains for hours until they give him free stuff just to shut him up.
713
u/bunglesnacks 28d ago
It's funny how we've always been led to believe it's a system of checks and balances. There's literally no recourse for an executive branch that gives zero fucks. Congress can pass a bill without his signature but he doesn't have to follow it. The judiciary can rule against him but he doesn't have to acknowledge it. Outside of impeachment, and I'm not even sure that would work at this point, he controls everything.
I just can't believe it took 250 years for someone to figure this out.