Judges have a range of tools for enforcing their orders in the face of noncompliance.
Yasmin Abusaif and Douglas Keith, Brennan Center for Justice
at NYU Law
 |
| They could simply post this picture of President Musk |
As the Supreme Court has explained,
it is a “basic proposition that all orders and judgments of courts must be
complied with promptly.” Courts can — and often do — step in when their rulings
are defied. Here’s an overview of the tools available to federal courts to
compel compliance, or punish noncompliance, with their decisions.
How can federal courts enforce their orders?
Courts have several important tools available to enforce
their orders, including contempt proceedings and attorney sanctions. Judges
regularly use at least some of these enforcement tools against the private
parties and government officials who appear before them.
Holding parties in contempt
In the face of noncompliance, a federal court can use the
contempt power to either compel the party to take action or punish them for
failing to follow an order. The Supreme Court has recognized this
power as “essential to . . . the enforcement of the
judgments, orders, and writs of the courts,” and thus inherent in courts’
authority. This power dates back to the founding
era when it was codified through the Judiciary Act of 1789.
There are two types of contempt proceedings, civil and
criminal, both of which can result in sanctions, fines, and in extreme cases,
jail time. Federal courts have broad discretion to determine whether a party is
in contempt of court, as oftentimes the judge is the sole
decision-maker as to whether to bring and issue contempt
citations (unless it’s a serious criminal penalty and is brought to a jury).
Civil contempt is primarily remedial, meaning that the
court’s goal is to enforce future compliance with the court
order, and a party can avoid punishment by simply complying with the court
order. For instance, a civil contempt order might impose a daily fine that
accrues until an order is complied with, such as in 2022, when a New York state
court held President Trump in civil contempt and fined him $110,000 in
total — $10,000 a day for each day his legal team failed to submit explanations
for not turning over documents.
Criminal contempt requires increased procedural safeguards and is intended to punish a disobedient party, and unlike most civil contempt penalties, the defendant can’t take action to avoid punishment.
However, the
president has the power to pardon those
convicted of criminal contempt. Trump controversially exercised this authority
in 2017 to pardon former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was held in
criminal contempt after he violated a court’s order to stop detaining suspected
undocumented immigrants.
Public officials are well
within the scope of the judiciary’s contempt power. Although
federal courts have never held a sitting president in
contempt of court, they have used the power to compel action by
and punish government agencies, officials, and civil servants responsible for
carrying out government actions. The Environmental Protection Agency, for
instance, was held in
civil contempt of court for failure to comply with a court order mandating that
the agency preserve certain records.
Likewise, in 2019, then–Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos was found in contempt for violating a court order to stop collecting on loans owed by students defrauded by for-profit colleges. The court fined the Department of Education $100,000 and ordered that the money be directed to the defrauded students.
In another example, a district judge ordered the
arrest of a Kentucky county clerk who had disregarded a court order to resume
issuing marriage licenses, which her office had suspended to protest the
Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage.
Issuing stricter orders
Before starting contempt proceedings, a judge who believes that a party is not adhering to a court order will often reiterate the order and identify specific benchmarks the party must meet to demonstrate compliance. We have already seen an example of this process play out in 2025. After plaintiffs challenged Trump’s executive order freezing federal grants and loans, U.S. District Judge John McConnell issued a temporary restraining order requiring officials to unfreeze the funds.
Several days later, the plaintiffs complained that the funds remained frozen, and the government’s lawyers argued that the administration was following its reading of the court’s “ambiguous” order.
McConnell ultimately determined that
the Trump administration had violated the “plain language” of his “clear and
unambiguous” order. He stopped short of finding the government in contempt, but
he laid out in greater detail the funds that the government must restore to
comply with his earlier order.
If litigants have exhausted all other means to
get the government to take action, they can also ask a court to issue a writ of
mandamus, a rarely used (or needed) court order that compels a government
official or employee to perform a legally required act. Courts’ power to issue
writs of mandamus is codified in federal law,
which expressly recognizes courts’ authority to
consider mandamus actions against federal officers or employees. However,
courts can only compel officials to perform their nondiscretionary
and purely ministerial duties, such as disbursing funds that are
owed to a party.
Sanctioning attorneys
Courts also have broad disciplinary authority over attorneys and can sanction them for helping their clients deliberately defy a court order. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for example, a court can sanction attorneys who submit filings for an improper purpose, such as to cause unnecessary delay or knowingly make legally unsound arguments.
The Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure, meanwhile, empower the appellate courts to discipline attorneys
for “conduct unbecoming a member of the bar or for failure to comply with any
court rule.” Penalties can include fines, but judges can also go as far as to
suspend or disbar attorneys for their refusal to cooperate.
Who do courts rely on to enforce orders?
While federal judges have clear authority to order
sanctions, including fines and arrest, they ultimately rely on law enforcement
and federal prosecutors to enforce penalties in the face of continued
noncompliance. The U.S. Marshals Service, which is part of the Justice
Department, is the primary
enforcement arm of the federal courts. Courts often rely on
marshals to serve summonses, subpoenas, and warrants, as well as make arrests,
and by
law, “it is the primary role and mission of the United States
Marshals Service to . . . obey, execute, and enforce all orders of” the federal
courts.
Courts also largely rely on federal prosecutors to pursue findings of criminal contempt. In most cases, the relevant U.S. attorney’s office will accept a criminal contempt case at the request of the court and prosecute it as they would any other alleged violation of criminal law.
However, judges are authorized to
appoint private attorneys to prosecute criminal contempt charges in the rare
instances when the U.S. attorney declines to accept the case. (In 2023, the
Supreme Court declined to
hear a petition by environmental lawyer Steve Donzinger, who claimed his
criminal contempt prosecution by an appointed private attorney was
unconstitutional.)
Have elected officials generally followed court orders?
Yes. Since the Civil War, presidents and other elected
officials of both parties have respected their obligation to follow court
decisions — even those with which they disagree. As President George W. Bush
put it when the Supreme Court held that
detainees in Guantanamo Bay could challenge their confinement, “We’ll abide by
the Court’s decision. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with it.”
Trump himself abided by this bedrock principle during his
first term. In 2017, a federal court swiftly blocked his administration from
enforcing his ban on people from seven majority-Muslim countries entering the
United States. While Trump complained about the decision, his administration
complied with the order, as it did with many others throughout his first term.
The last time the United States saw widespread open defiance of court orders by elected officials was when governors in Southern states refused to integrate their schools after the Supreme Court ruled against segregation in public education in Brown v. Board of Education.
President Dwight Eisenhower — though he was no fan of the Court’s decision —
ultimately dispatched troops to the South to help enforce the ruling, saying,
“The Supreme Court has spoken and I am sworn to uphold the constitutional
process in this country, and I will obey.” The governors’ efforts to defy court
orders are widely acknowledged as one of the most shameful periods in U.S.
history.
