What happens if Trump starts ignoring court rulings? We break it down

This story originally appeared on NPR. 

In less than a month in office, President Trump has signed dozens of executive orders that are now facing pushback in the courts.

Many are wondering: What happens if he simply ignores them?

Law professors who spoke to NPR saw warning signs of a constitutional crisis based on a recent court order and comments from the vice president over the weekend.

On Monday, a federal judge in Rhode Island found the White House had defied an earlier court order to unfreeze federal grant and program funds. U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr. ordered the administration to immediately end any federal funding pause.

That court order came a day after Vice President JD Vance suggested that judges don’t have the ability to challenge President Trump’s “legitimate power.”

Vance wrote on X, “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.”

It’s unclear what specific judge or court order Vance was referring to.

Traditionally, executive branch employees, officials and lawyers have understood they must comply, not just with explicit court orders, but with existing legal roles to comply with the rule of law. But that’s mostly relying on good faith and tradition, Emerson said.

Within this system, there are avenues for the Trump administration to challenge court decisions. The White House can, and has in prior administrations, appealed to appellate courts and the Supreme Court over lower court decisions it disagrees with.

That phase of the litigation hasn’t been reached for Trump’s cases, Emerson said. But the Trump administration’s reaction to court orders so far, including Vance’s statement, suggest that there’s at least some discussion within the Oval Office over the extent the administration plans to challenge judicial authority, he said.

What courts have at their disposal

Courts have tools to force compliance — whether that be through fines or sanctions, finding someone in contempt or even jail time.

But some experts, like retired federal judge Nancy Gertner, who spoke to Morning Edition, view these options as representing empty threats.

“It’s not clear that fines are going to make a particle of difference. There’s even the possibility of imprisoning someone until the order is followed,” she said.

It would fall to the U.S. Marshals Service — which is part of the Department of Justice — to enforce a judge’s order. But “if Trump wanted to fully not comply, he could direct the Department of Justice not to comply. At that point, you have a full-on constitutional crisis,” Gertner said.

A 2018 Harvard Law Review article on judicial contempt powers by Yale University professor Nicholas R. Parrillo found there were several cases of federal judges who tried to levy fines and imprisonment when the executive branch was found noncompliant with court orders. But he concluded that higher courts “have exhibited a virtually complete unwillingness to allow sanctions, at times swooping down at the eleventh hour to rescue an agency from incurring a budget-straining fine or its top official from being thrown in jail.”

However, Parrillo wrote, “even though contempt findings are practically devoid of sanctions, they have a shaming effect that gives them substantial if imperfect deterrent power.”

A look back in history

Hickman, with the University of Minnesota Law School, believes courts don’t typically pursue fines or sanctions, saying that “usually it is enough to threaten them and people tend to comply.”

Still, there have been times presidents have ignored Supreme Court decisions, rendering them essentially unenforceable.

In 1832, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a missionary living with the Cherokee Nation for refusing to take an oath to obey the laws of Georgia. Chief Justice John Marshall found that the Cherokee Nation constituted an independent political community and didn’t have to follow Georgia’s laws. President Andrew Jackson ignored that ruling on the Cherokee’s independence and launched the forced migration of the Cherokee Nation known as the Trail of Tears.

Almost 30 years later, President Abraham Lincoln authorized the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War. Chief Justice Roger Taney declared that in doing this, Lincoln had exercised a power that belonged only to Congress. Lincoln disagreed. It was essentially resolved about two years later when Congress authorized the president to suspend habeas corpus.

Courts ultimately have few ways to punish a president for ignoring their rulings, but Congress still exists to intervene, Hickman said.

“Congress, ultimately, is the arm of our government that enacts statutes. And if the president is claiming authority under a statute to do X and Congress disagrees, Congress can amend the statute and say, you don’t have the power,” she said.

However, Republicans, faithful to Trump, control both the House and Senate, so opposition is unlikely.