defy court orders

Well, it looks like the Trump Gang is starting to defy court orders and do what they want. If they do this regularly and the courts cannot hold him, that might be the last line of resistance to fall. Obviously, the GOP Senate and House is doing nothing to slow him down or stop him. 

Citizen protests can go only so far. If there were an absolute massive uprising of citizens, that could work, but it is very unlikely. 80 million Americans simply didn't bother to vote, and it's unlikely many Republicans would join Dems in the streets. And I think Trump HOPES that protests would become violent so he could declare martial law and really clamp down.

Perhaps the only other thing to wrest fascism from their greedy little hands might be a war. Maybe some sympathetic country could come to our aid and take the MF out, along with a bunch of his cronies. Hey, you know Germany owes us a pretty big favor for helping to root out Hitler. Maybe they would be willing to return the favor and free Americans from the grips of a tyrant. Or France? They love freedom. How about Canada, or Mexico? 

There is an outside chance that the 3 upcoming US House elections could all go Dem, effectively providing a block on Trump, IF he doesn't defy Congress too.

Another possible way to slow him down is for the courts to issue contempt citations for defying court orders and jail the motherfuckers. Immunity? Well, this case will have to work its way up the chain to resolve that. Tell me how destroying our democracy would fall anywhere near "official duties" of protecting and defending the Constitution. 

Way to go, America.

Judge Rules the White House Failed to Comply With Court Order

The federal judge in Rhode Island said the Trump administration had failed to comply with his order unfreezing billions of dollars in federal grants.

By Mattathias Schwartz

Mattathias Schwartz reports on the federal courts from Philadelphia.

• Feb. 10, 2025Updated 4:30 p.m. ET

A federal judge on Monday said the White House has defied his order to release billions of dollars in federal grants, marking the first time a judge has expressly declared that the Trump White House was disobeying a judicial mandate.

The ruling by Judge John J. McConnell Jr. in Rhode Island federal court ordered Trump administration officials to comply with what he called “the plain text” of an edict he issued on Jan. 29.

That order, he wrote, was “clear and unambiguous, and there are no impediments to the Defendants’ compliance with” it. 

Judge McConnell’s ruling marked a step toward what could quickly evolve into a high-stakes showdown between the executive and judicial branches, a day after a social media post by Vice President JD Vance claimed that “judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power,” elevating the chance that the White House could provoke a constitutional crisis.JD Vance claimed that “judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power,” elevating the chance that the White House could provoke a constitutional crisis.

“It’s very rare for a president not to comply with an order,” said Victoria Nourse, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center who served during the Obama and Biden administrations. “This is part of a pattern where President Trump appears to be asserting authority that he doesn’t have.”

But for some of President Trump’s allies, it is the judges ruling against Mr. Trump who are out of bounds.

“Activist judges must stop illegally meddling with the President’s Article II powers,” wrote Mike Davis, who heads the Article III Project, a conservative advocacy group.

Already, more than 40 lawsuits have been filed against the Trump administration challenging Mr. Trump’s brazen moves, which have included revoking birthright citizenship and giving Elon Musk’s teams access to sensitive Treasury Department payment systems. Judges have already ruled that many of these executive actions may violate existing statutes.

Judge McConnell previously ordered the White House to unfreeze federal funds locked up by a memo from the White House Office of Management and Budget that demanded that billions of dollars in federal grants be held back until they were determined to comply with President Trump’s priorities, including with ideological litmus tests.

On Friday, 22 Democratic attorneys general went to Judge McConnell to accuse the White House of failing to comply with his earlier order. The Justice Department responded in a filing on Sunday that money for clean energy projects and transportation infrastructure, allocated to states by the Inflation Reduction Act and the bipartisan infrastructure bill, was exempt from the initial order because it had been paused under a different memo than the one that prompted the lawsuit.

Judge McConnell’s ruling on Monday explicitly rejected that argument. 

The judge granted the attorneys generals’ request for a “motion for enforcement” — essentially a nudge. It did not find that the Trump administration was in contempt of court or specify any penalties for failing to comply.

However, the judge was straightforward in his finding that an initial temporary restraining order that he issued Jan. 29 was not being followed.

“These pauses in funding violate the plain text of the T.R.O.,” Judge McConnell wrote. That earlier ruling ordered the administration not to “pause, freeze, impede, block, cancel, or terminate” money that had already been allocated by Congress to the states to pay for Medicaid, school lunches, low-income housing subsidies and other essential services.

It was still not clear how the White House would respond. Harrison Fields, a White House spokesman, suggested the president would ultimately prevail in court.

“Each executive order will hold up in court because every action of the Trump-Vance administration is completely lawful,” he said. “Any legal challenge against it is nothing more than an attempt to undermine the will of the American people.”

But Judge McConnell made clear that White House officials were obligated to comply regardless of how they thought the case might conclude. In his ruling on Monday, the judge quoted an opinion from a previous case noting that “persons who make private determinations of the law and refuse to obey an order generally risk criminal contempt even if the order is ultimately ruled incorrect.” 

The showdown is part of a broader effort by Mr. Trump’s opponents to get congressionally approved funding flowing again. Another order requiring that the disputed funds be released was issued last Monday by Judge Loren AliKhan of the District of Columbia. That case was filed by a coalition of nonprofits represented by Democracy Forward. 

Skye Perryman, Democracy Forward’s chief executive, said that if there were to be a standoff between the executive and judicial branches, she hoped that the legislative branch would step in. 

“That is really a call to action for Congress,” she said. “The judicial branch is not going to be able to stop this unlawful and extreme use of executive power on its own.”

Charlie Savage contributed reporting. Seamus Hughes contributed research.

Original.