Since jailing government officials for contempt may be impossible or impracticable given that the marshals work for Pam, might there be another stick the courts may have to compel compliance?
In her dissent to the SCOTUS stay order in JGG, Justice Sotomayor made 2 references to one possible method by which the federal courts might deal wi…
Since jailing government officials for contempt may be impossible or impracticable given that the marshals work for Pam, might there be another stick the courts may have to compel compliance?
In her dissent to the SCOTUS stay order in JGG, Justice Sotomayor made 2 references to one possible method by which the federal courts might deal with a presidential administration that defies court orders. In California state courts, it is referred to as the “Disentitlement doctrine.” That terminology seems to be confined to cases in which fugitives might lose rights.
But based on the language used in a Supreme Court dissent this week, the broader use of the courts’ discretion to effect a punishment on a court order violator is apparently “a thing” in federal courts too.
Justice Sotomayor stated:
“More fundamentally, this Court exercises its equitable discretion to intervene without accounting for the Government noncompliance that has permeated this litigation to date. The maxim that "he who comes into equity must come with clean hands'" has long guided this Court's exercise of equitable discretion…
“The Government's conduct in this litigation poses an extraordinary threat to the rule of law. That a majority of this Court now rewards the Government for its behavior with discretionary equitable relief is indefensible. We, as a Nation and a court of law, should be better than this. I respectfully dissent.”
In other words, the courts in their discretion need not entertain requests for equitable relief made by a party who has contemptuously defied a court order. Thus, theoretically, every district judge and every Court of Appeals panel could routinely deny the Trump administration every request for injunction and motion for non-monetary relief IN ANY CASE, even those completely unrelated to these immigration cases on this ground for long as they fail to comply with any court’s lawful order. Of course it is discretionary. Moreover under this “disentitlement doctrine,” any appellate court can dismiss any appeal filed by the government on the ground that the government stands in contempt.
This is what Justice Sotomayor and ALL of her sisters on the court, including Justice Barrett who signed on to this section of the dissent was suggesting in the dissent to Roberts’ order granting the stay.
Since jailing government officials for contempt may be impossible or impracticable given that the marshals work for Pam, might there be another stick the courts may have to compel compliance?
In her dissent to the SCOTUS stay order in JGG, Justice Sotomayor made 2 references to one possible method by which the federal courts might deal with a presidential administration that defies court orders. In California state courts, it is referred to as the “Disentitlement doctrine.” That terminology seems to be confined to cases in which fugitives might lose rights.
But based on the language used in a Supreme Court dissent this week, the broader use of the courts’ discretion to effect a punishment on a court order violator is apparently “a thing” in federal courts too.
Justice Sotomayor stated:
“More fundamentally, this Court exercises its equitable discretion to intervene without accounting for the Government noncompliance that has permeated this litigation to date. The maxim that "he who comes into equity must come with clean hands'" has long guided this Court's exercise of equitable discretion…
“The Government's conduct in this litigation poses an extraordinary threat to the rule of law. That a majority of this Court now rewards the Government for its behavior with discretionary equitable relief is indefensible. We, as a Nation and a court of law, should be better than this. I respectfully dissent.”
In other words, the courts in their discretion need not entertain requests for equitable relief made by a party who has contemptuously defied a court order. Thus, theoretically, every district judge and every Court of Appeals panel could routinely deny the Trump administration every request for injunction and motion for non-monetary relief IN ANY CASE, even those completely unrelated to these immigration cases on this ground for long as they fail to comply with any court’s lawful order. Of course it is discretionary. Moreover under this “disentitlement doctrine,” any appellate court can dismiss any appeal filed by the government on the ground that the government stands in contempt.
This is what Justice Sotomayor and ALL of her sisters on the court, including Justice Barrett who signed on to this section of the dissent was suggesting in the dissent to Roberts’ order granting the stay.