Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The Importance of Respecting Court Orders

Opinion

The Importance of Respecting Court Orders
brown wooden chess piece on brown book

The most important question in American politics today is whether Donald Trump will respect court orders. Judges have repeatedly ruled against his administration.

But will he listen?


In America, the courts—not the president or Congress—resolve disputes and, in the process, define the Constitution and federal laws. This principle is known as judicial review. It arose in the 1803 case Marbury v. Madison, when Chief Justice John Marshall declared that judges define the law: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”

It’s been this way ever since.

Following court orders allows expectations to be set, disputes to be resolved, decisions to be honored, and litigants to move on. This is especially important when, like today, political passions run high. Without a deep and powerful tradition in America of respecting court orders as the last word, disputes would drag on, multiply, and intensify.

Indeed, if we don't all agree on who has the last word, then no one does. And if no one does, then we won’t have a coherent, stable or effective legal system.

Donald Trump cares little about America’s legal traditions, including judicial review. He just wants to get his way. He’s already pushing the limits, arguably violating a judge’s March 15 order to return two planes carrying deportees Trump alleges are Venezuelan gang members. And Vice President JD Vance, for his part, recently suggested on X (formerly Twitter) that the administration wouldn’t follow certain court orders: “If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal. Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power.”

This attitude is disturbing to many, including Chief Justice John Roberts. In his 2024 year-end report, Roberts warned that officials “from across the political spectrum have raised the specter of open disregard for federal court rulings. These dangerous suggestions, however sporadic, must be soundly rejected.”

Some of Trump’s biggest supporters agree. Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, for example, recently said that, “I think you can dislike the court’s opinion and think they’re wrong on the substance, and criticize them for that, and you certainly can vigorously appeal … I think outright, sort of just like, ‘Oh, we’re just going to ignore the decision completely?’ That, I think you can’t do.”

Having the power to resolve disputes reposed in the judiciary isn’t just blind tradition. It makes good sense. Judges restrain the presidency. They check administrative agencies. And they keep Congress in line. Under the Constitution, moreover, judges sit for life upon good behavior. They don’t campaign or run for reelection and are therefore politically insulated. Yet because judges must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, democratic accountability undergirds their selection.

The result is a judiciary that tends to be more rational and principled than the executive and legislative branches. “The Judiciary,” Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 78, “has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment.” While the judiciary has made mistakes, compared to the political branches (often a low bar, admittedly) it has exercised its judgment well. It does so today with consistent rulings rejecting Trump’s overreaching executive actions.

America’s constitution, legislation, and judicial opinions set laws on paper. However, respect for the rule of law, in people’s hearts and minds, is the necessary precondition for the legal system to work. This starts with respecting court orders. Judicial review has been a bedrock tradition of American democracy for more than two centuries. It has been tested in great legal battles over the separation of powers, federalism, abortion, desegregation, and even presidential powers during wartime. And it has survived: people on the losing side of cases, including presidents, have uniformly respected court orders.

The question looming over the country today is whether Donald Trump will, too.

William Cooper is the author of How America Works … And Why It Doesn’t


Read More

This Sheriff’s Office Says Racial Profiling Reforms Are Too Costly. Auditors Found It Misused $163 Million.

The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office misused $163 million intended to address racial profiling reforms, according to a court-mandated audit.

Illustrations by Shoshana Gordon, ProPublica.
“I’m still under attack:” Karla Toledo, relief and fear after case dismissed

A community member rests on the sidewalk, shielding herself from the sun with a banner outside the Tucson Immigration Court. People show their support for Karla Toledo with banners and petitions, and by wearing pink — a color representing solidarity with communities affected by mass deportation policies.

Credit: Summer Williams

“I’m still under attack:” Karla Toledo, relief and fear after case dismissed

Karla Toledo — the DACA recipient detained by masked immigration agents at her own home in mid-May — celebrated the dismissal of her case by a judge in Tucson. The 31-year-old Latina immigrant expressed both relief and caution.

About 30 people gathered Wednesday outside the Tucson Immigration Court building for what was expected to be Karla’s first hearing after her arrest and confinement at Eloy Detention Center. Family and community members carried signs with Karla’s image that read: “Stand with Karla. Protect Dreamers.”

Keep ReadingShow less
 Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection

The Trump Justice Department faces scrutiny over alleged prosecutorial misconduct, political pressure, and threats to the rule of law and judicial integrity.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

Is There Anything That Trump’s Justice Department Lawyers Won’t Do?

There was a time when working for the United States Department of Justice might have been a lawyer’s dream. Speaking on behalf of the United States, working with people who were dedicated to preserving the rule of law and upholding the highest standards of professionalism, not a bad gig.

As Harvard Law School once explained, the department offered lawyers an unparalleled “opportunity to serve the public in a meaningful way while carrying out the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) mandate to ‘pursue justice’ every day…” Not a bad gig.

Keep ReadingShow less

One Year After Arrest, Pressure Mounts on El Salvador to Free Ruth López

Human rights organizations across the Americas are intensifying pressure on the Salvadoran government to immediately release Ruth Eleonora López, a prominent anti‑corruption attorney who has now spent more than a year in pretrial detention under what advocates describe as arbitrary, retaliatory, and rights‑violating conditions. López, who leads the Anti‑Corruption and Justice Unit at Cristosal, was detained on May 18, 2025, and has remained behind bars ever since. Her case has become a flashpoint in the region’s debate over democratic backsliding and the criminalization of civil society under President Nayib Bukele.

According to Amnesty International, López’s first hours in custody amounted to a short‑term enforced disappearance, as authorities refused to reveal her whereabouts to her family or legal team. The organization reports that she has since been held under an incommunicado regime, with sharply restricted access to counsel and relatives, while her case remains sealed under judicial secrecy — preventing any public examination of the evidence against her. Over the past year, the charges have shifted without explanation, moving from alleged embezzlement tied to advisory work more than a decade ago to illicit enrichment. Human Rights Watch notes that no evidence has been presented in open court, and a judge extended her pretrial detention in December 2025, with the current order set to expire this month. The Human Rights Research Center adds that López’s imprisonment reflects a broader pattern in El Salvador of criminalizing human rights defenders, journalists, and anti‑corruption advocates.

Keep ReadingShow less