Resources for understanding attacks on the judiciary

Our government is built on the principle of checks and balances, ensuring that no single branch grows too strong or abuses its power. As James Madison wrote in “Federalist No. 51,” “the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same [governmental] department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others.” 

Our Constitution relies on the judicial branch to serve as a check against unlawful abuses of executive power. Threats to defy the courts or efforts to bully judges jeopardize the foundational checks and balances that protect our rights, our economy, our communities, and our safety. 

The Trump administration appears to be defying court orders

The Trump administration appears to be defying court orders

The Trump administration has had a fraught relationship with the courts in its first one hundred days. Administration officials like Vice President JD Vance and Elon Musk have called for judges who rule against the administration to be removed from office. Other members of the administration have refused to rule out defying court orders and dismissed the authority of district courts. 

The President has so far said he will respect the federal courts when they rule against him. But his statements do not match the administration’s actions and questions about whether the government is in compliance have been raised in a number of cases. D.C. District Court Judge James E. Boasberg has determined he has probable cause to believe that administration officials defied his order requiring a halt to deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. Judge Paula Xinis of the District of Maryland has ordered the administration to turn over evidence of their efforts to help return Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the United States, saying the government has not provided her with any response or legal justification for not answering. And in several cases involving the withholding of federal funding, courts have found the administration to be out of compliance with preliminary injunctions to restore funding.

Versions of this type of court defiance are a common part of The Authoritarian Playbook in countries that have suffered from democratic backsliding. In Turkey, Poland, Hungary, and Russia, autocrats have defied court attempts to rein in executive power. When the court system breaks down or bends to the will of an autocrat, civil liberties are eroded, economies are corrupted, and political opponents are punished. 

The administration’s approach poses a dilemma for those seeking to uphold the Constitution and the law. On the one hand, the president insists he won’t defy a court order, especially one that comes from the Supreme Court. On the other hand, the types of specious legal arguments and delay tactics employed by the President’s Justice Department look increasingly like “legalistic noncompliance”—using legal language and procedures to mask the defiance of court orders happening behind closed doors. This creates a situation where the President says he is complying, but is in fact pushing boundaries and eroding constitutional checks one “slice of the salami” at a time.

The administration’s acts of defiance against the courts are alarming, but have not yet passed a point of no return. Courts and litigators have been using the tools at their disposal to enforce court orders and hold government officials who defy them accountable. And a bipartisan majority of Americans believe the president should not be able to ignore rulings he disagrees with. 

78% say the Trump administration should have to follow a federal court’s ruling, rising to 88% if the Supreme Court were to issue the ruling.

Pew Research Center, 4/23/25

Protect Democracy has created and collected resources for understanding the threats to the judiciary, why they matter, and what litigators, courts, and everyday Americans can do if the administration defies the courts.

What lawyers and courts can do

What lawyers and courts can do

The first line of defense for protecting the judicial branch is the courts themselves. If court orders are not followed, lawyers have strategies to ask courts to force government officials to comply, and federal courts have broad power to hold those who defy their orders accountable. The following resources explain and analyze the options that litigants and courts have to ensure court orders are respected.

Our resources

Our resources

Tracking support for court orders

Tracking support for court orders

The President’s attacks on the judiciary are unpopular, both with the general public and with leaders in the President’s coalition. The following resources collect public opinion polling and statements by elected officials helpful to understand the unpopularity of defying the courts.

Republican statements affirming support for complying with court orders: