‎Legal experts warn Trump admin's court defiance risks full-blown constitutional crisis

A growing number of legal scholars are sounding the alarm over the Trump administration's increasingly frequent refusal—or reluctance—to comply with federal court orders, warning that such actions risk pushing the country toward a constitutional crisis.

‎

‎'Donald Trump.'

‎Getty Images

‎

‎The concern, experts say, is not merely theoretical. Federal judges in multiple cases have issued rulings that the administration has either delayed acting on or disregarded outright. Among the most high-profile examples: the Supreme Court’s directive to return Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident erroneously deported to El Salvador. Despite losing several appeals, administration officials have argued that the ruling does not obligate them to secure his return.

‎

‎“The argument that they’re in compliance with the Supreme Court’s order and the district court’s subsequent orders is ridiculous,” said David Noll, a professor at Rutgers Law School. “They’re essentially thumbing their nose at the court.”

‎

‎This type of defiance, experts argue, strikes at the heart of the constitutional balance of powers. Courts, while lacking their own enforcement arm, possess mechanisms such as civil and criminal contempt to compel compliance.

‎

‎“If the judiciary determines that the executive branch is flouting its authority, judges can initiate contempt proceedings,” Noll explained. “That can include fines, asset freezes, and in extreme cases, arrest.”

‎

‎However, enforcement becomes complicated when it intersects with executive power. U.S. Marshals, who carry out court-ordered arrests, fall under the Department of Justice—an agency ultimately under presidential control. That raises chilling possibilities.

‎

‎Retired federal judge Nancy Gertner told NPR that if the president ordered DOJ not to carry out a contempt enforcement, “you have a full-on constitutional crisis.”

‎

‎White House spokesperson Harrison Fields pushed back on such characterizations, telling Axios, “The Administration remains fully compliant with Supreme Court rulings.” He argued that the Court's decision did not mandate compelling a foreign government—El Salvador in this case—to return an individual.

‎

‎“President Trump discussed the matter with President Bukele, who firmly stated that El Salvador will not return the individual. The issue is resolved,” Fields said.

‎

‎But legal experts counter that a unilateral declaration of resolution does not override judicial authority. Courts retain the discretion to determine when their orders have been fulfilled. If not, they can escalate enforcement—even resorting to rare historical mechanisms, like deputizing alternative law enforcement officers to carry out their mandates, should the Marshals be blocked.

‎

‎In a 2018 Harvard Law Review article, Professor Nicholas R. Parrillo observed that while federal agencies occasionally resist judicial orders, courts’ contempt powers have served as a significant deterrent—at least when the “power of shame” still held sway.

‎

‎“What we’re witnessing may be the breakdown of that power,” Noll warned.

‎

‎As the nation watches this high-stakes legal standoff unfold, the underlying issue remains profound: Can a court command the executive branch, and what happens if the answer is no?

‎

‎Why It Matters

‎

‎The Trump administration’s posture toward judicial authority may set enduring precedents, testing the resilience of the U.S. Constitution’s separation of powers—and redefining the boundaries of presidential accountability.