Justice Kagan stresses the need for government officials to obey court orders
Follow
Supreme Court Associate Justice Elena Kagan said Thursday that one of the major challenges facing the federal judiciary today is the possibility of government officials defying court orders.
The comments from Kagan, one of three liberal members on the high court, come as the Trump administration has been accused of flouting orders from lower courts.
'This idea that litigants, and most especially here I'm talking about government officials, needn't obey the dictates of courts. Needn't obey court orders. And you know that just is not the way our system works, not the way rule of law in this country works,' Kagan said during a wide-ranging conversation before an audience of judges and lawyers at the 9th US Circuit Judicial Conference as she discussed several things she thought presented a challenge to the nation's federal court system.
She continued: 'And that's true for the Supreme Court, and it's also true for every district court, unless and until an appellate court or the Supreme Court says otherwise — that judicial orders are judicial orders and need to be respected.'
Among the other issues Kagan said are facing her colleagues in the judiciary are threats to their personal safety and the way people talk about judges in the US. She pointed to a rare statement Chief Justice John Roberts issued earlier this year after President Donald Trump called for judges who ruled against him to be impeached.
'Judges are fair game for all kinds of criticism: strong criticism, pointed criticism. But vilifying judges in that way is a step beyond and ought to be understood as such,' Kagan said at the event in Monterey, California.
The administration has been accused of skirting court orders in a range of cases, but judges have largely avoided pursuing contempt proceedings against officials.
The issue reached new heights last month after a fired Justice Department lawyer who worked on immigration cases filed a whistleblower complaint that claimed a top DOJ official crudely told others in the department to ignore court orders before a controversial immigration enforcement situation in March.
Emil Bove, the official accused of making the comments, has denied the allegations. The US Senate is currently considering whether to confirm him to a lifetime appointment on a Philadelphia-based federal appeals court.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘The courts are helpless': Inside the Trump administration's steady erosion of judicial power
Six months into Donald Trump's second term, his administration is at war with the federal judiciary, evading court orders blocking its agenda, suing judges for alleged misconduct, and veering toward what multiple current and former federal judges say could be a constitutional crisis. The administration this summer sued the entire federal district court in Maryland after its chief judge temporarily blocked immigration removals. It also filed a judicial misconduct complaint recently against the chief judge of the powerful DC District Court, James 'Jeb' Boasberg, over comments he reportedly made in private to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts in March. The standoff is unlikely to end anytime soon. On Friday, an appeals court ruled that Boasberg cannot move ahead in his effort to hold Trump administration officials in contempt for misleading him in a fast-moving case in which migrant detainees were handed over to a Salvadoran prison. As Trump-appointed judges across the country continue to deliver the administration wins, the federal judiciary's ability to be a check on the executive branch has slowly been diminished. 'They are trying to intimidate, threaten and just run over the courts in ways that we have never seen,' said one retired federal judge, who, like about a half-dozen other former and current judges, spoke to CNN anonymously given the climate of harassment the Trump administration has created and the tradition of jurists not to comment publicly on politics and ongoing disputes. How judges counter The courts have tools to fight back — a lawyer in a courtroom who refuses a direct order or lies could be held in contempt on the spot. Judges also have the power to demand witness testimony and documents. They may also commission independent investigations and can make a criminal referral or levy civil penalties, like fines. But so far, many judges have hesitated to move too quickly to levy sanctions or other punishments aimed at the Trump administration. 'The truth is we are at the mercy of the executive branch,' said one former federal appellate judge, adding that courts have fewer enforcement mechanisms than the White House, such as law enforcement and prosecutorial power. Sanctions situations also typically escalate slowly, and appeal opportunities for the Justice Department are ample and can take years. 'At the end of the day, courts are helpless,' the former judge added. Some judges, like Boasberg in Washington, DC, and Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland, have already analyzed how they could respond to disobedience by moving toward sanctions or contempt proceedings for members of the Trump administration. In both judges' courts, the administration has delayed following judicial orders when detainees were sent to a prison in El Salvador without the proper due process. Courts also move slowly at times. In one Maryland case on Friday, lawyers for a Venezuelan man sent to El Salvador by the Trump administration told a judge they are still looking at whether they'll ask the court to hold the administration in contempt. The administration actions happened in March. 'The more egregious the contemptible behavior, the more speedy the judge will probably move, and the heavier weapons they'll use,' said another former federal judge, who sat on a trial-level district court bench. 'Courts in general will see they need to move with speed and sharpness on this, if they're going to get to the bottom of what happened,' the former judge added. Trump gets help from his appointees In some situations, Trump-appointed judges have slowed or stopped direct conflict between the administration and judges. The Supreme Court, with its conservative majority, this year signed off in Trump's favor on most emergency disputes over the use of his powers to reshape the federal government, undercutting standoffs. But Trump's appointees to the federal bench haven't unilaterally refrained from questioning the executive's approach. For instance, in a case over the Trump administration stopping the payout of grant programs, a judge in Rhode Island on Friday chastised the Department of Housing and Urban Development for 'inaction' as potentially a 'serious violation of the Court's order.' Nonprofit groups that received grants for affordable housing for low-income senior citizens had reported the administration hadn't paid out $760 million in grants the court said it must months ago. The judge, the Trump-appointee Mary McElroy in the Rhode Island US District Court, responded, 'At risk of understatement, that is serious,' then invited the Trump administration to 'explain itself.' In Boasberg's immigration case on Friday, a divided DC Circuit Court of Appeals with two Trump appointees in the majority ended a contempt proceeding that began three and a half months ago. The hold that had been over the case and the decision Friday have hurt Boasberg's ability to gather evidence of suspected disobedience of Trump administration officials toward the court. Judge Greg Katsas of the DC Circuit, a Trump appointee, wrote that stopping the criminal contempt proceeding could help defuse a long and messy standoff between the judiciary and the Trump administration. Boasberg has already signaled some of his other options. 'This Court will follow up,' he said at a hearing in late July, noting recent whistleblower revelations about Justice Department leadership's approach to the case. 'In addition, whether or not I am ultimately permitted to go forward with the contempt proceedings, I will certainly be assessing whether government counsel's conduct and veracity to the Court warrant a referral to state bars or our grievance committee which determines lawyers' fitness to practice in our court,' the judge added in July. In late June, a whistleblower publicly accused then-top Trump Justice Department official Emil Bove of telling attorneys they may need to ignore court orders like Boasberg's and 'consider telling the courts 'f*** you,'' the whistleblower wrote to Congress. Since then, Bove, a former defense attorney to Trump personally, was confirmed by the Republican-held Senate to become a judge himself. He now sits on the 3rd Circuit federal appeals court overseeing Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware. Bove told the Senate he couldn't recall whether he made the comments about ignoring the courts. Complaints Boasberg has been one of the judges who's been most criticized publicly by Trump and others in the president's top circle. Boasberg decided in mid-March the administration couldn't send detainees to El Salvador under a war-time act without due process and told the government to turn the airplanes around and bring the detainees back into US custody. In July, the Justice Department formally complained about Boasberg to the appeals court above him, accusing him of judicial misconduct. That complaint emerged after the conservative website the Federalist reported on comments Boasberg made at a private, annual meeting for leaders in the judicial branch — an incident separate from the immigration case he's handled. Boasberg and about a dozen other federal judges from around the country had an informal breakfast meeting with Roberts in early March, CNN has confirmed. When Roberts asked the judges to share what was concerning their jurisdictions, Boasberg said the judges of the trial-level court in Washington, DC, over which he presides, had concerns the Trump administration might ignore court orders, and that would cause a constitutional crisis. Roberts responded without indicating his thoughts, a person familiar with the meeting told CNN. A Supreme Court spokesperson didn't respond to a request for comment. 'Judge Boasberg attempted to improperly influence Chief Justice Roberts,' said the Justice Department's complaint about the judge, sent to the chief of the appellate court above him. The administration maintains it never intentionally violated his orders in the immigration case, and that after Boasberg spoke to Roberts at the judicial conference, he 'began acting on his preconceived belief that the Trump Administration would not follow court orders,' a reference to the immigration case proceeding. Fears of a constitutional crisis Steve Vladeck, Georgetown University law professor and CNN legal analyst, called the DOJ's complaint against Boasberg preposterous in a recent analysis he wrote on Substack. Vladeck said that while the complaint is likely to be dismissed when a court reviews it — just as most misconduct complaints against judges are resolved — the Trump administration's approach may have been intended more to intimidate other federal judges and play to the president's base. 'None of these developments,' including the Boasberg complaint, 'are a constitutional crisis unto themselves,' Vladeck told CNN. 'But they all reflect efforts to undermine the power and prestige of the federal courts for if and when that day comes.' 'The problem is that too many people are waiting for a crossing-the-Rubicon moment, when what we've seen to date is the Trump administration finding lots of other ways to try to sneak into Rome,' Vladeck added. However, several of the former and current judges who spoke to CNN thought the courts aren't yet facing a full-blown constitutional crisis. 'We're in the incipient stages of a constitutional crisis. We're in the early stages,' one federal judge told CNN recently. 'We've all been talking about it since the moment [Trump's] been elected — that the administration could defy federal court orders.' A full constitutional crisis, this judge said, would emerge if the administration disregarded Supreme Court orders. That hasn't happened yet, and attorneys from the Justice Department are still engaging in many proceedings by meeting their deadlines and arguing in earnest at court hearings. J. Harvie Wilkinson III, a long-serving, conservative judge appointed by Ronald Reagan on the 4th Circuit US Court of Appeals, pointed to presidential history in a recent opinion telling the Trump administration to follow court orders to facilitate the return of a Maryland immigrant, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, after he was mistakenly sent to El Salvador. Wilkinson wrote about President Dwight Eisenhower being willing to carry out the desegregation of schools following the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education. 'The branches come too close to grinding irrevocably against one another in a conflict that promises to diminish both,' Wilkinson wrote. 'The Executive may succeed for a time in weakening the courts, but over time history will script the tragic gap between what was and all that might have been, and law in time with sign its epitaph.' Suing the bench Some of the Trump administration's unusual attacks of the judiciary are still testing how far they could go. The DOJ filed its complaint as the judges were gathering at the 4th Circuit's conference in Charlotte, North Carolina, in late June. The judges from Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia were shocked when they heard of the lawsuit naming all Maryland federal district judges all as defendants, and the district court realized the need to swiftly hire a lawyer to defend them, people familiar with the response told CNN. The Justice Department has said it sued as a way to rein in judicial overreach. Defense attorney Paul Clement, on behalf of the Maryland judges, called the lawsuit 'truly extraordinary' and 'fundamentally incompatible with the separation of powers.' Eleven former federal judges from various circuits, including some appointed by Republican presidents, warned in their own amicus brief in the case that if the Trump administration is allowed to carry its approach through 'to its logical conclusion,' it would 'run roughshod over any effort by the judiciary to preserve its jurisdiction that frustrates the Executive's prerogatives. … That result would be devastating to the efficacy of the Nation's courts.'
UPI
34 minutes ago
- UPI
IDF says slain reporter was Hamas; journalist groups condemn killing
The Israel Defense Forces said Sunday that it killed an Al Jazeera reporter it accused of being a Hamas militant. File Photo by Jim Hollander/UPI | License Photo Aug. 11 (UPI) -- The Israeli military said it struck and killed Al Jazeera reporter Anas al-Sharif, accusing him of being a Hamas militant, which attracted condemnation from journalist organizations. The Israel Defense Forces made the announcement Sunday on X, saying al-Sharif "was the head of a Hamas terrorist cell and advanced rocket attacks on Israeli civilians and IDF troops." "A press badge isn't a shield for terrorism," the IDF said on X. Al Jazeera reported that al-Sharif was one of four colleagues killed in a targeted Israeli attack on a tent housing journalists in Gaza City, one of the few areas in the Palestinian enclave not under Israeli military control. Seven people were killed in the strike, the Qatar-based news organization said. In a statement, Al Jazeera Media Network condemned what it called the "targeted assassination" of its correspondent, along with photographers Ibrahim Al Thaher and Mohamed Nofal. "As Al Jazeera Media Network bids farewell to yet another group of its finest journalists, who boldly and courageously documented the plight of Gaza and its people since the onset of the war, it holds the Israeli occupation forces and government responsible for deliberately targeting and assassinating its journalists," Al Jazeera Media Network said, adding that al-Sharif's death follows calls from Israeli officials to target him and his colleagues. The IDF has repeatedly criticized Al Jazeera and has accused several of its reporters in Gaza of being Hamas or Islamic Jihad militants. Late last month, IDF spokesman Avichay Adraee accused al-Sharif in a video posted to Facebook of being a member of Hamas' military wing since 2013. Following al-Sharif's death, Adraee continued to post videos and photos to his Facebook account repeating his claims that the journalist was a militant. In its statement Sunday, the IDF cited Israeli intelligence and Gaza documents as proof that al-Sharif "was a Hamas operative integrated into Al Jazeera." Israel has killed at least 178 Palestinian journalists during its nearly two-year-old war in Gaza, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, which said Israel has "a longstanding, documented pattern of accusing journalists of being terrorists without providing any credible proof." "Israel's pattern of labeling journalists as militants without providing credible evidence raises serious questions about its intent and respect of press freedom," CPJ Regional Director Sara Qudah said in a statement in response to al-Shari's death. "Journalists are civilians and must never be targeted. Those responsible for these killings must be held accountable."
Epoch Times
35 minutes ago
- Epoch Times
Advocacy Group Urges China to Lift Exit Bans on 7-Year-Old and His Mother
A Chinese mother and her U.S.-born young child are being barred from leaving China after a family trip there last year, marking another case where Beijing has stopped foreigners and Chinese nationals from departing the country. On Aug. 7, the Dui Hua Foundation, a San Francisco-based advocacy group for at-risk detainees in China, raised the plight of the Gao family—permanent U.S. residents Gao Zhen and his wife Zhao Yaliang, and their seven-year-old son, Gao Jia, a U.S. citizen from New York. The senior Gao and his younger brother, Gao Qiang, are well-known as the 'Gao Brothers' for their artworks critical of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). One particularly well-known art piece is a bronze statue of former CCP leader Mao Zedong kneeling, his right hand on his chest with a sorrowful expression. In August last year, Gao Zhen was detained on the charge of 'slandering China's heroes and martyrs' during a family trip. The foundation pointed out that the charge was based on the Heroes and Martyrs Protection Law, which went into effect in 2018, even though his artworks mocking the Chinese regime's leadership were created before 2009. Zhao and her son have been barred from leaving China since the senior Gao's arrest. The foundation questioned why Beijing chose to impose the exit ban on them, noting that neither has been accused of a crime nor is required for any criminal investigation by the Chinese authorities. Unable to return to the United States, the seven-year-old Gao 'has been unable to attend school for a full year,' the foundation added. 'It's one thing to slap exit bans on adult Americans like bankers or government employees, it's an entirely different matter to impose an exit ban on a young child,' John Kamm, executive director of the Dui Hua Foundation, said in a statement. Last month, the Chinese regime announced that it had imposed an exit ban on Mao Chenyue, an Atlanta-based managing director at Wells Fargo, accusing the banker of being 'involved in a criminal case.' Also in July, the U.S. State Department confirmed that a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office employee was being prevented from leaving China after traveling there in a personal capacity. In September last year, the foundation estimated that there were 'more than 300 Americans under coercive measures in China,' and 'more than 30 are under exit bans.' The foundation stated that China's treatment of the younger Gao violates the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, which China signed in 1990 and ratified two years later. As for the senior Gao, the foundation stated that he is scheduled to be tried and sentenced 'in the coming weeks,' and warned that he could receive a long sentence, despite his not guilty plea. 'Charging someone with a crime that was not a crime at the time the alleged offense took place,' Kamm said, 'is a violation of a fundamental principle of justice, the principle of non-retroactive application of the law.' 'The Chinese government must stop persecuting the Gao family. It must free Gao Zhen and lift the exit bans on Gao Jia and his mother and allow them to return to the United States.' New York-based nonprofit, the Human Rights Foundation (HRF), sent a letter dated Oct. 31 last year to the consulate general of China in New York, demanding the senior Gao's immediate and unconditional release. The letter, written by HRF Chief Advocacy Officer Roberto González, argued that his artworks 'are incredibly necessary to educating the world on the truth of Mao's dictatorial legacy.' Mao instigated the Red Guards, who were Chinese high school and university students, to persecute those identified as 'class enemies' of the communist regime, amid the Cultural Revolution that lasted 10 years until Mao's death in 1976. González also argued that Beijing should repeal the Heroes and Martyrs Protection Law to 'safeguard artistic freedom in China.' 'His detention is not just a violation of his rights but a blatant abuse of power and an attack on the fundamental human freedoms of all Chinese people who have the right to learn the truth about dictator Mao Zedong,' the letter reads.
