The moment of crisis: Trump intentionally violates multiple court orders

March 17, 2025

Since Inauguration Day 2025, commentators have been speculating about whether and how our democracy would survive a refusal by Trump to comply with a court order. Well, we are about to find out. Over the weekend, Trump intentionally ignored a court order in a case arising out of the deportation of (alleged) Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act of 1789. See Axios How Trump's White House defied a judge's order halting deportations

So, the question has changed from,

“What will happen IF Trump ignores a court order?”

to

“What are we going to do about the fact that Trump HAS ignored a court order?”

Before looking at the details of what happened, let’s skip to the end and answer the question of what happens now that Trump has intentionally disobeyed a court order.

The short answer is that the federal judges must hold Trump and subsidiary officials in civil contempt. The Supreme Court must affirm those findings. Civil contempt is not a pardonable offense.

In normal times, officials would comply with court orders after being found in contempt. If that doesn’t happen, impeachment is the next step in the process of enforcing the rule of law.

In normal times, the finding that a president has deliberately violated a court order would result in impeachment, conviction, and removal from office.

Since the GOP-controlled Congress will not impeach and convict Trump, the next step is for the people of the US to follow the example of other nations by engaging in mass demonstrations, national strikes, boycotts, and civil disobedience. For example, in Hungary, Trump's friend and hero, Viktor Orban, is the subject of mass protests. Radio Free Europe, Thousands Of Hungarian Opposition Supporters Rally; PM Orban Vows Crackdown On Media

Trump's corporate overlords want to preserve the ordered society and stable economy that allows their businesses to flourish. A president who claims that the laws are optional raises the question of why anyone should be bound by the law. No one—least of all the president, whose power derives from a law-abiding electorate—wants Americans to view the law as optional.

To the extent that there is a glimmer of hope in the events that unfolded over the weekend, it is that Trump (or his advisors) blinked when they realized they had admitted that Trump intentionally violated a court order. By blinking, someone in the Trump administration signaled that they understand the cascading consequences of a president who declares that the rule of law has ended.

While the above answers may not be satisfactory to some, the good news is that we have an answer to the troubling question of “What happens if Trump ignores a court order?” The answer is all power derives from the consent of the governed. That consent is contingent and granted only upon good behavior of the grantees.

In the end, “We, the people,” are the answer to the question of what happens if Trump violates a court order.

---

What happened with the deportation of the alleged Venezuelan gang members?

Let’s start by acknowledging the truth: Trump has been ignoring court orders for the last several weeks while pretending that he was complying with those orders. Over the weekend, Trump dropped all pretense of compliance and blatantly ignored an order by US District Court Judge James Boasberg, who had ordered Trump to return the alleged Venezuelan gang members to the US--who were in the air on a US military flight to El Salvador at the time the order was issued. A detailed timeline is included in the Axios article, How Trump's White House defied a judge's order halting deportations.

The order effectively required the military flight to turn around and return to the US. In direct violation of the order, the flight continued to El Salvador, where custody of the Venezuelans was relinquished to prison officials in El Salvador.

A source in the White House told Axios that Trump was ignoring the order to turn the plane around and return the deportees to the US because (per Axios) “court orders could not reach conduct by US officials outside of the US.” The notion that a federal district court does not have jurisdiction over US officials outside of the US is ludicrous.

Per Axios,

The Trump administration says it ignored a Saturday court order to turn around two planeloads of alleged Venezuelan gang members because the flights were over international waters and therefore the ruling didn't apply, two senior officials tell Axios.

White House officials later attempted to walk-back their admission that Trump had flouted the court order. A different official issued a revised statement to Axios, saying,

Very important that people understand we are not actively defying court orders.

I have highlighted the word “actively” in the second statement by the unnamed White House official. That qualifier effectively admits that the White House had completed its violation of the court order by relinquishing custody of the deportees to El Salvador—an outcome achieved only by ignoring the court order to turn back the military plane and return the deportees to the US.

The second statement by the White House is reminiscent of a politician accused of having sex with an intern who issues a denial by saying, “I am not actively having sex with an intern.” The contorted denial is an admission. Whether someone is violating a court order at the moment they are issuing the denial is irrelevant to the question of whether they violated the court order in the past.

There are many aspects of the deportation that are deeply troubling—most of which I will address tomorrow. For example, the Alien Enemies Act applies only during times of a “declared war” or when a foreign government undertakes an invasion of the US. See Brennan Center for Justice, The Alien Enemies Act, Explained | Brennan Center for Justice. Even if deportation is permitted, the deportees were delivered to the custody of a third party (El Salvador) for imprisonment rather than their home country (Venezuela)—which has jurisdiction over its own citizens. That sounds like kidnapping, not deportation.

Judge Boasberg will likely hold an evidentiary hearing to determine who, if anyone, deliberately violated his order.

But the Venezuelan deportation is not the only event where Trump has violated a court order. As explained in the NYTimes,

A kidney transplant specialist and professor at Brown University’s medical school has been deported from the United States, even though she had a valid visa and a court order temporarily blocking her expulsion, according to her lawyer and court papers.

Judge Leo T. Sorokin . . . said there was reason to believe U.S. Customs and Border Protection had willfully disobeyed his previous order to give the court notice before expelling the doctor. He said he had followed “common practice in this district as it has been for years,” and ordered the federal agency to respond to what he called “serious allegations.”

Do you see a pattern here? The Trump administration believes that court orders prohibiting deportation are optional. One way or another, the issue will be presented to the Supreme Court, which must answer whether the president is subject to the courts' jurisdiction. Once we have the answer to that question, we will know what our next move is.

---

Trump's response to the passage of the continuing resolution

Within minutes of the Senate’s passage of the GOP continuing resolution, Trump passed an executive order that shut down seven more federal agencies and departments—all in violation of Article I Section 9 of the Constitution and the Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

The agencies that Trump shuttered were created by congressional statute and funded through appropriations that must be honored. Trump continues to order the termination of agencies despite the fact that several courts have stayed prior illegal shutdowns. The only logical conclusion is that Trump is deliberately defying court orders with full knowledge that his most recent actions are illegal.

Per the executive order, the following agencies and departments are required to reduce their functions to the bare minimum permitted by law:

(i) the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service;

(ii) the United States Agency for Global Media;

(iii) the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in the Smithsonian Institution;

(iv) the Institute of Museum and Library Services;

(v) the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness;

(vi) the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund; and

(vii) the Minority Business Development Agency.

The “United States Agency for Global Media” is the parent of Voice of America. On Friday, all employees at Voice of America were put on leave. See AP News, Trump signs order to cut staff at Voice of America and other US-funded media organizations.

---

Trump issues executive order suspending security clearances for attorneys at law firm Paul Weiss

Trump has issued another executive order targeting an elite law firm—Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. Per the order, all security clearances for Paul Weiss attorneys are suspended pending review.

The executive order justifies the suspension of security clearances on three grounds:

(a) a Paul Weiss attorney took on a pro bono matter representing people injured in the January 6 attacks on the Capitol;

(b) Paul Weiss re-hired Mark Pomerantz after he worked for the Manhattan District Attorney’s office on the criminal trial against Trump that resulted in 34 guilty convictions; and

(c) Paul Weiss promotes diversity and inclusion in the workplace.

Major law firms must band together before it is too late. Trump is going to pick off firms one by one. The assault on any single law firm as punishment for representing interests adverse to Trump is an assault on the legal profession and the rule of law. It is time to wake up, BigLaw—before it is too late!

---

Opportunities for Reader Engagement

I received this note from Movement Voter Project, a group that is well-known to readers of Today’s Edition:

The Comeback Campaign: A Volunteer-Led Kickoff for Movement Voter PAC

Sun, Mar 23

7-8pm ET • 6-7pm CT • 5-6pm MT • 4-5pm PT

Join this volunteer-led event in support of Movement Voter PAC’s Comeback Campaign: An effort to fund grassroots groups working to protect communities, block MAGA, and plant the seeds to win back power in 2026 and beyond.

Speakers:

• Regina Clemente • Director of Donor Organizing, Movement Voter PAC

• Emilia González Avalos • Executive Director, Unidos MN

• Corinne Rosen • State Director, Wisconsin Working Families Party

• Jessica Craven • Activist, organizer, author of “Chop Wood Carry Water” Substack

• More speakers to be confirmed

RSVP here — and forward this invite to anyone who might breathe a sigh of relief when they learn there is a real way they can make a difference right now.

Concluding Thoughts

My wife, Jill Bickett, and I joined a #TeslaTakedown protest on Saturday. Jill posted a video on her blog, here: Every Day With Jill, Tesla Takedown: Part 1.

Hundreds (thousands?) of readers joined similar protests over the weekend and sent photos. I will create a page with photos of signs to give readers ideas for future protests. One of my favorites: “1775 called. They want their dictator back.”

Two quick observations about the protest we attended:

According to protesters who have been at the location for several weeks, last week’s protest at the same location consisted of 20 protesters and 3 police cars. A week later, the crowd size had grown to about 60 protesters and zero police cars! If protest size continues to grow at that rate, we will be thousands strong each weekend—at a single location. Multiply that by hundreds of locations across the nation and we are talking about a serious national protest movement. We need to get to that point, fast!

Second, most passersby honked in approval. The occupants in two cars registered their disagreement. A young white male in a van dropped the F-bomb. Four young white men in a Tesla used obscene hand gestures and a Nazi salute to express their disagreement with the boycott—a counterproductive communication on their part.

As I say in Jill’s video. Tesla is in trouble. When tens of thousands of Americans will give up their Saturdays on a regular basis to send a message to the president, something has shifted in the firmament.

The Tesla protests are about more than Elon Musk. They serve as a focal point for the resistance to Trump's entire agenda. And they are a great way for people to become involved in street protests. We will need national days of protest soon. Attending a small local protest is a great way to become energized and meet other committed Americans.

Trump has crossed a line. He has intentionally violated a court order and admitted doing so. What will do about that fact? In the end, “We, the people,” are the answer to the question of what happens if Trump violates a court order. To my mind, that is a compelling answer.

Talk to you tomorrow.

Daily Dose of Perspective

Jill and I were in Europe for two weeks and Los Angeles has had a few days of rain. All of which is to say I am struggling to build up a backlog of astronomy photos to publish. So, I am reduced to sharing my vacation photos, which I hope are better than nothing. When I use travel photos, I will try to fit them into a theme of perspective.

Below are two photos of the Tower Bridge on the River Thames, taken from a ferry between Tower Pier and Greenwich Pier on a round trip to the Royal Observatory in the mid-afternoon and early evening.

The Tower Bridge was completed in 1894. But here is the “perspective” part: The Tower Bridge (and five other bridges over the River Thames) are owned by the City Bridge Foundation—a charitable trust founded in 1282 CE to maintain the bridges over the River Thames. The fact that a charitable foundation can last three-quarters of a millennium is pretty cool!

Enjoy!