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

Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Orders Are an ‘Un‑American Attack’

US citizens and American people

Getty Images

Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Orders Are an ‘Un‑American Attack’

The Trump Administration’s latest executive orders targeting birthright citizenship are not just legally dubious—they are a direct challenge to the Constitution, the Supreme Court, and the millions of Americans whose citizenship is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Less than six weeks after the Court reaffirmed in Trump v. Barbara that “birthright citizenship is the law of the land,” the administration has returned with new orders designed to narrow who counts as American. legal experts view these actions as an attempt to “override constitutional guarantees” through executive fiat, despite the Court’s clear ruling.

Keep ReadingShow less
Lawmakers Push for Immigrant Woman’s Release and Medical Records After Suspected Miscarriage

An immigrant woman detained by ICE since February says that she has received limited medical care despite repeatedly voicing concerns that she may have had a miscarriage while at the detention center.

National Immigrant Justice Center

Lawmakers Push for Immigrant Woman’s Release and Medical Records After Suspected Miscarriage

Lawmakers are seeking the release of an immigrant woman who says that — despite pleading for help after experiencing bleeding and severe pain, indications of a possible miscarriage — she has received limited medical care in detention.

“This is URGENT, please. I am pregnant and have been bleeding since yesterday, Saturday the 21st. It is vaginal bleeding. I am pregnant, and I am scared for the baby; I am also experiencing pain in my lower back, hips and abdomen. I am under a great deal of stress. Thank you. Please help me,” she wrote in Spanish in an emergency medicine request in late March that was shared with The 19th.

Keep ReadingShow less
Answering the Call, Lawyers Must Lead the Defense of Democracy

Three law books beside opened notebook

Answering the Call, Lawyers Must Lead the Defense of Democracy

This year marks the 250th anniversary of our founders’ Declaration of Independence from Great Britain. But the constitutional democracy it enabled - designed to promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - is now threatened, not by a foreign adversary, but from within.

Persistent constitutional and statutory transgressions, coupled with the continued erosion of democratic norms that once safeguarded our institutions, have undermined the foundations of our democratic order. They have also shaken Americans’ confidence in its durability.

Keep ReadingShow less
 Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection. Back lit

From FIFA to federal agencies, politics is reshaping institutions once guided by expertise. How Trump v. Slaughter could redefine presidential power.

Aitor Diago/Getty Images

The Politicization of Everything

A red card is supposed to be one of the few things in public life a president cannot fix.

Not anymore, apparently. During the World Cup, U.S. striker Folarin Balogun received a red card and an automatic one-game suspension. President Trump called FIFA President Gianni Infantino, who lifted the suspension. Whether the decision was right or wrong is beside the point. Another line separating politics from ordinary life had been crossed.

Keep ReadingShow less