Post New

So, apparently, if the government does nothing by April 23, the judge will hold them in criminal contempt. Though it's unclear who will actually go to jail until the order is complied with. Who was giving the orders? Miller? Dunno. Not specified in this article.

https://www.npr.org/2025/04/16/g-s1-60696/judge-co...

However, whoever gets tagged is doomed. Albaby will correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think a criminal contempt charge is pardonable. So the Felon can't swoop in to rescue that person.

However, whoever gets tagged is doomed. Albaby will correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think a criminal contempt charge is pardonable. So the Felon can't swoop in to rescue that person.

Generally the President has the power to pardon someone for criminal contempt of court:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Grossman

Folks have tried to argue in various circumstances that a particular contempt conviction should not be subject to the pardon power - here's a discussion of the arguments raised in the Arpaio prosecution, though they didn't get up to a higher court because of a number of procedural issues:

https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB...

Civil contempt cannot be pardoned, though - and the court can order the contemnor to be jailed pending compliance. So that's probably the more powerful weapon in the judiciary's arsenal.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contempt_of_court_...

contemnor

I learned a new word today.

--Peter

So, apparently, if the government does nothing by April 23, the judge will hold them in criminal contempt.

To make it clear, this is the case Judge Boasberg is handling, regarding the initial deportation flights to El Salvador. But the information on contempt is also useful for the case regarding Mr. Abrego Garcia, who was illegally on one of those flights, and looks like it's also headed toward contempt findings. Judge Xinis in that case already has a motion for contempt, and is ordering the parties to get information on the record that would support (or refute) that motion. And her deadlines are similar.

--Peter

Civil contempt cannot be pardoned, though -

Such a crime, civil can't be pardoned. :)

One might nonetheless ask how this inquiry into compliance is able to proceed at all given that the Supreme Court vacated the TRO after the events in question. That Court’s later determination that the TRO suffered from a legal defect, however, does not excuse the Government’s violation. Instead, it is a foundational legal precept that every judicial order “must be obeyed” — no matter how “erroneous” it “may be” — until a court reverses it. If a party chooses to disobey the order — rather than wait for it to be reversed through the judicial process — such disobedience is punishable as contempt, notwithstanding any later-revealed deficiencies in the order...

That's his logic.
The higher court shut down my TRO because it was bad (or to be precise, 'suffered from a legal defect') but he's holding them in contempt anyway for an order that was vacated.

That's his logic.

Yep. Well, it's not his logic. It's logic from the very first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court as laid out in a case from 1809.

But I guess the current administration has no regard for judicial precedent or the law itself when that precedent or law goes against what they want to do.

And, as usual, you misstate an argument you don't like. It's not the ultimate disposition of the TRO that matters. It is the power of the court that must be respected. A court's orders must be followed until a higher court reverses them. The government would have suffered no irrepairable harm by returning the planes to the US. Once a higher court decided to overturn the order by finding the case needed to be filed in a different court*, the people could have been deported. But the deportees DO suffer an irrepairable harm by the order being ignored. As the government is now arguing in a related case, those deportees are out of the control of the US and any who should not have been deported can no longer argue their case against deportation.

Once again, the real issue becomes one of following the law. You don't get to pick and choose which laws you follow. You don't get to decide not to follow a law you don't like. And in the situation of judicial orders - whether coming before or after a trial - those orders have the force of law behind them.

--Peter

* And once the finding was made in a higher court, the plaintiffs would most likely have been able to obtain a substantially identical TRO on an expedited basis in the "right" court based on the record established in the "wrong" court.

And, as usual, you misstate

And as usual you need to make it about somebody else. You do you, homie.

It's not the ultimate disposition of the TRO that matters.

LOL. So if a rogue judge issues a bogus TRO like this one - and it gets vacated - then it's still in force? Yeah, that's not how this works.

It is the power of the court that must be respected.

All branches of government are separate and co-equal; despite the left's insistence that Obama judges from wherever can issue nationwide pronouncements on policies they don't like, the country doesn't work that way. "Stay in your lane" is what the Supremes told this guy but he evidently feels as if he has some authority over internal security and foreign relations.

As the government is now arguing in a related case, those deportees are out of the control of the US and any who should not have been deported can no longer argue their case against deportation.

In the particular case of the "Maryland father" who
-Is an illegal alien
-Had multiple protection orders filed against him likely for DV
-Was under a deportation order
-Was found by at least one court to be a gang member and threat to society

...he's an El Salvadoran national in the custody of his government. Such an odd hill for you libs to die on but as I said, you do you.

So if a rogue judge issues a bogus TRO like this one - and it gets vacated - then it's still in force? Yeah, that's not how this works.

It's not still in force - but that doesn't mean that it wasn't wrong to ignore while it was in force.

If you've been wrongly convicted of a crime, you're not allowed to break out of prison. Even if you're sure that you'll prevail on appeal. And if you break out of prison and your original conviction is overturned (a court found that the conviction was "bogus"), you can and should still face criminal penalties for having broken out of prison. Because breaking out of prison is independently a bad act - even if a mistake was made, it is still wrongful for someone to violate the law.

All branches of government are separate and co-equal; despite the left's insistence that Obama judges from wherever can issue nationwide pronouncements on policies they don't like, the country doesn't work that way.

Why doesn't it work that way? An injunction applies to the party being enjoined no matter where that party happens to be. If a corporation that does business all over the country loses a case and is enjoined from, say, violating someone else's copyright, that injunction doesn't just apply in the district it's issued in. If you win an injunction against a person, say enjoining them from disclosing your trade secrets, that injunction applies to them everywhere they are - they can't just go across a state line and be free from the legal consequences of having lost a case.

There's only one federal government. If they lose a case in one part of the country, they've lost. They have to comply with the ruling of the court wherever they are, which (for the federal government) is nationwide.

It's not still in force - but that doesn't mean that it wasn't wrong to ignore while it was in force.

Hmm. So judges can now just...rule on whatever they want, whenever they want? That how it works?

If you've been wrongly convicted of a crime, you're not allowed to break out of prison. Even if you're sure that you'll prevail on appeal. And if you break out of prison and your original conviction is overturned (a court found that the conviction was "bogus"), you can and should still face criminal penalties for having broken out of prison. Because breaking out of prison is independently a bad act - even if a mistake was made, it is still wrongful for someone to violate the law.

Except this scenario is the reverse of the above. The judge is saying, 'Yeah, my TRO was bad but you should have followed it anyway'. This is a ticking bomb.

Why doesn't it work that way? An injunction applies to the party being enjoined no matter where that party happens to be.

Only if the judge has jurisdiction in the matter, which this guy...does not.

In the particular case of the "Maryland father" who
-Is an illegal alien

That is a lie. He was a legal resident - has a green card.

-Had multiple protection orders filed against him likely for DV

If you KNEW he had multiple protection orders, you would know what they were for. Until you provide evidence, this sure sounds like a lie.

-Was under a deportation order

Again, that is a lie. There was no deportation order. What he DID have was an order saying that he could not be deported to El Salvador because he had a legitimate concern for his safety if deported to there.

-Was found by at least one court to be a gang member and threat to society

And yet another lie. There IS NO SUCH FINDING. All there is was an unsubstantiated and very likely false claim that he was a member of MS-13.


In spite of all of that, what you said next is the real crux of the issue. It cuts to the heart of the matter.

he's an El Salvadoran national in the custody of his government. Such an odd hill for you libs to die on

It's a hill EVERYONE should be fighting to die on. It's a thing called Due Process. I don't care if everything you claim was actually true. There is still a process to follow. That process is not just for US citizens, it is for EVERY PERSON in the US and subject to US laws. There is a legal process to be followed before the Federal or State governments can take actions against you. That process was not followed for Abrego-Garcia, nor anyone else on those flights to El Salvador. If the government can violate the due process rights of the most vile criminal, they can violate the due process rights of anyone and everyone. That is why this is a hill worth dying on. It literally affects absolutely everyone in the country - citizen or not.


Listen, Dope. I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. Plenty of folks here have done the same. You make claims, those claims are refuted, yet you continue to believe and repeat the lies you have been told. I no longer will claim that you are smart enough to keep from falling for this crap. If you can't understand the gravity of this situation, you are just plain too dumb to bother interacting with - other than outright mockery of your stupidity.

--Peter

Hmm. So judges can now just...rule on whatever they want, whenever they want? That how it works?

No. If they rule incorrectly, their rulings will be overturned. During the time when the court order is in effect, you have a legal obligation to follow the court's order. Even if it's overturned later, it is a wrongful act to defy a court order while it is still active. Because that's how the rule of law works - a court order is valid until it is overturned.

Except this scenario is the reverse of the above. The judge is saying, 'Yeah, my TRO was bad but you should have followed it anyway'. This is a ticking bomb.

That's how the law works. It's not a ticking bomb. The whole point of TRO's is that they impose obligations on the parties while the merits are being worked out. It's known and anticipated that TRO's might end up not being the right answer - which is why they are Temporary Restraining Orders, rather than the court just issuing a summary Permanent ruling right at the beginning of the case. The reason we have TRO's is not to work a final disposition of the case, but to force the parties to preserve the status quo so that when the case is finally decided, the parties haven't been irrevocably harmed during the pendency of the suit.

So if you and I have a property dispute over which of us is the owner of a valuable piece of pottery that you have possession of, the judge may issue a TRO telling you that you can't destroy the pottery. Not because the judge is deciding right then that the pottery belongs to me (after all, if it belongs to you then you can destroy it if you want). It's to protect the party who might win the case from being unavoidably damaged during the interim. Even if you end up winning the case, you still have an obligation to obey the TRO for that reason - and you can (and should) be sanctioned if you violate the court's order.

Replying to myself -

The due process issue is really the key here. It's taken up in the first half of this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BX4kdoiTXY

--Peter

That is a lie. He was a legal resident - has a green card.

You're thinking of the wrong guy. Kilmar Abrego Garcia is an illegal alien; Mahmoud Khalil was the guy who had his green card revoked.

If you KNEW he had multiple protection orders, you would know what they were for. Until you provide evidence, this sure sounds like a lie.

Nope, no lie.
https://x.com/BillMelugin_/status/1912512024606539...

In fact, here's a DV order from 2020:
https://x.com/TeriChristoph/status/191253598301634...

You're zero for 2.

Again, that is a lie. There was no deportation order. What he DID have was an order saying that he could not be deported to El Salvador because he had a legitimate concern for his safety if deported to there.

Here's the original court finding:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscour...

And his appeal:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscour...

...his appeal was dismissed.

Here's the order saying 'don't deport to El Salvador':
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscour...

Asylum was denied. His application under the Convention Against Torture was denied.

Listen, Dope. I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt.

LOL. You roll into threads, act like a complete d1ck, then whine when somebody pushes back on your rank d1ckitude. In this particular case, you also happened to have most of your facts wrong, then went and got on some kind of high horse.

Do better. Or don't.

So if you and I have a property dispute over which of us is the owner of a valuable piece of pottery that you have possession of, the judge may issue a TRO telling you that you can't destroy the pottery. Not because the judge is deciding right then that the pottery belongs to me (after all, if it belongs to you then you can destroy it if you want). It's to protect the party who might win the case from being unavoidably damaged during the interim. Even if you end up winning the case, you still have an obligation to obey the TRO for that reason - and you can (and should) be sanctioned if you violate the court's order.

Everything you're posting...is contingent on being up in front of a judge with actual jurisdiction. IIRC you live in Florida. I live in Washington. You can't run to a judge in Massachusetts and ask her to issue a TRO on your behalf.

There's plenty of case law to back up what you're saying. That's great. Fully accepted in practice.

However, does any of that case law have to deal with the executive branch being ordered to do something by a court which has not established jurisdiction over a matter? And then issues an unlawful order on top of that?

That's the bomb here.

conventional routes for contempt judgement and enforcement seem weak :
- referral for prosecution would go to bondi, who will decline. (busy persecuting maine for inconvenient states' rights)
- the path for the judge to then appoint an independent prosecutor has been shown skepticism from scotus team trump.

pbs did not expound on a civil contempt scenario. who would actually process enforcement?

Everything you're posting...is contingent on being up in front of a judge with actual jurisdiction. IIRC you live in Florida. I live in Washington. You can't run to a judge in Massachusetts and ask her to issue a TRO on your behalf.

Sure I can. I can always ask.

But if I don't have a cogent argument for why that court has jurisdiction, she won't give me a TRO. Because you will be asked to demonstrate why the court has jurisdiction, the other party can raise absence of jurisdiction, and you won't get a TRO unless and until the court determines as a threshold matter that it has jurisdiction.

Might the court get that wrong? Sure - there are contested issues over jurisdiction, just like any other point of law. And sometimes that point of law - like any other point of law - gets found by a later court to have been wrongly decided. This was not an open-and-shut case on the jurisdictional point, BTW - Boasberg's order was upheld by the Circuit Court, and the SCOTUS decision on the point was 5-4. So not really analogous to running off and finding a state that obviously lacks jurisdiction.

Regardless, you still have to obey the order while it's in effect. Again, that's the whole point of the TRO - while disputed issues are being worked out, the parties are required to obey orders that the judge may issue to keep the status quo from changing to the irrevocable detriment of another party. That doesn't just apply to disputes over the substantive law, but any matter raised in the case - notice, service, jurisdiction, venue, statutes of limitations, anything. When a judge gives you an order in a case, you have to obey it even if you think it's wrong. You have to obey it even if an appellate court is going to determine that it is wrong, because until that appellate court does overturn it the order is still in effect.

There's no "bomb" that the point on which it was overturned was jurisdictional rather than substantive. You have to follow court orders, even if you think they're wrong, and even if the point that you think they're wrong about is procedural rather than substantive.

albaby1 once again schools on the difference between what one thinks the law should be versus what the law actually is.

Damn lawyers. 😁

Do better.

Probably should follow your own advice. You completely skipped the real issue that I raised here.

Even if all of the things you claim are correct, Abrego Garcia still has the right to due process. He has the right to refute your claims in court.

And that right was denied him by kidnapping him and whisking him out of the country without giving him the chance to appear before a judge.

If the government can do that to him, they can do that to you, too.

—Peter

Even if all of the things you claim are correct,

In other words, your insult fest was a complete face plant because you rolled up on me having 100% of your facts wrong and now you’re attempting to cover for your failure by pivoting.

Yeah. Not gonna work.

Do better. Btw, let’s not attempt to pretend you have principles, mmmkay? I don’t buy it.

Do better.

And yet you still refuse to address due process. Are you afraid to think about that or just too scared to say anything against the Trump administration. Falling in line like a good little robotnik.

—Peter

Do better.
Admit you rolled in with a lot of ignorance and even more stupid invective. Be an adult and take the L.

Your deflective point is also off the mark. He had a lot of due process.

He went in front of the first immigration judge. He appealed that ruling. He lost.

On attempt #3 he got his withholding order. Since you don’t know anything about this case, I’ll spell it out for you: the judge DENIED his request for asylum. That means he was fair game to deport. Just not to El Salvador.

Do you understand that much? I’ve linked up all the court documents for you. BTW it’s obvious you didn’t read anything.

If you want to have a debate show up here with some semblance of an argument. You’re not. We both know that any emotion from you or appeal to principle is merely performative in nature.

And if you want to make an appeal, go read what Andy McCarthy has to say on the subject. You’ll learn something and might actually have a leg to stand on.

Civil contempt cannot be pardoned, though - and the court can order the contemnor to be jailed pending compliance. So that's probably the more powerful weapon in the judiciary's arsenal.

I'm guessing that doesn't apply here? The article said "criminal contempt". I'm assuming there are guidelines dictating which applies in any given circumstance. I was under the -evidently mistaken- impression that 'contempt' was a court thing, and regardless of the variety, it wasn't pardonable. In fact, I thought it was the only open-ended sentence a person could get...you're in jail until you comply with the order, however long that takes. It's not breaking a law, per se, but violating a court order (even if the order is later rescinded/overruled, as you've been telling us).

I'm guessing that doesn't apply here? The article said "criminal contempt". I'm assuming there are guidelines dictating which applies in any given circumstance. I was under the -evidently mistaken- impression that 'contempt' was a court thing, and regardless of the variety, it wasn't pardonable. In fact, I thought it was the only open-ended sentence a person could get...you're in jail until you comply with the order, however long that takes. It's not breaking a law, per se, but violating a court order (even if the order is later rescinded/overruled, as you've been telling us).

You're correct that it wouldn't apply here.

There are two main categories of contempt: civil and criminal. Civil contempt is a tool used to compel current or future compliance with an ongoing court order. Criminal contempt is a punishment for violations of a court order, whether past or present.

For example, imagine a court orders a party to disclose all documents relating to X. At trial, it comes out that the party willfully failed to comply, and rather than turning over the documents decided to just shred them. The court can find the party in criminal contempt as a punishment for their past violation of the order. The purpose of the jail time there is to punish the bad behavior the party has already committed, not to compel compliance. However, instead suppose the order is still pending and the party could comply at any time. Now, the court might impose a sanction against the party (like jail time) as a mechanism to get them to currently comply.

The main factor, as noted in the link upthread, is that the contemnor "holds the key to the jailhouse door in their pocket." They can walk out of jail at any time simply by following the order. The jail time is not a punishment for something they did that can't be undone, but instead an effort to get them to comply with a current requirement.

In the instant case, the judge is weighing whether contempt is warranted for the government's failure to comply with his order to stop the planes. It would be a punishment for their past wrongdoing, not an effort to compel any current compliance. So civil contempt would not be available, only criminal contempt.

In the instant case,

Which is the case before Judge Boasberg regarding the deportation flights.

That would be contrasted with the case before Judge Xinis regarding Abrego-Garcia where the potential contempt is an ongoing refusal to follow her order to facilitate his return to the US. That would be a civil contempt where the contempt could be cured by following the order, right?

—Peter

That would be contrasted with the case before Judge Xinis regarding Abrego-Garcia where the potential contempt is an ongoing refusal to follow her order to facilitate his return to the US. That would be a civil contempt where the contempt could be cured by following the order, right?

That's certainly a possibility, yes. I hedge only because I don't litigate much, so I really don't know the ins and outs of the federal judiciary's contempt powers (and hopefully wouldn't have occasion to know that even if I did litigate). So I don't know if there's a statute or federal rule of civil procedure that specifies the types of things that are proper subjects for civil contempt sanctions, or whether it's wholly within the power of the court to decide. I would assume that willful refusal to comply with a court order would be a proper subject of contempt proceedings, but you never know if there's some rule or regulation that says that it's available only for certain matters.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.