The people who would arrest the DOJ lawyer are U.S. marshals, who are also part of the DOJ, which is part of the executive branch. So, the courts do not have an enforcement mechanism that does not depend on the executive branch. It's a major flaw in the system.
The people who would arrest the DOJ lawyer are U.S. marshals, who are also part of the DOJ, which is part of the executive branch. So, the courts do not have an enforcement mechanism that does not depend on the executive branch. It's a major flaw in the system.
A judge can deputize anyone to carry out the court's orders. If the marshals refuse, he can recruit state law enforcement officers. Or just use the court's own security officers against anyone physically present in his court room.
The people who would arrest the DOJ lawyer are U.S. marshals, who are also part of the DOJ, which is part of the executive branch. So, the courts do not have an enforcement mechanism that does not depend on the executive branch. It's a major flaw in the system.
A judge can deputize anyone to carry out the court's orders. If the marshals refuse, he can recruit state law enforcement officers. Or just use the court's own security officers against anyone physically present in his court room.
If thatтАЩs the case, the judge can order the marshals to incarcerate the attorney. My guess is that they would not want to be held in contempt too.
Maybe a trip to El Salvador to b held in contempt for the attorneys?