A Court’s Options To Enforce Compliance With Court Orders

Civil Rights Policy Brief No. 239 | Rodney Maggay | March 26, 2025

Summary:

Under Rule 3.3 of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, titled “Candor Toward the Tribunal,” a lawyer has a number of duties when dealing with a court of law. Rule 3.3(a)(1) states “A lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer. Additionally, Rule 3.3(a)(3) provides “A lawyer shall not knowingly offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. While these are model rules, each state has a version of these rules, including the section on “Candor Toward the Tribunal,” that all lawyers must abide by when dealing with a tribunal or court.

One of President Donald Trump’s campaign promises for his 2024 presidential election campaign was to deal with aspects of the United States’ immigration system. President Trump promised to deport illegal immigrants who had committed violent crimes while in the U.S. After members of a violent Venezuelan based gang were rounded up, the Trump Administration set up flights to send them to a special prison in El Salvador under an agreement with the country’s President. On March 15th, 2025 The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Democracy Forward filed a lawsuit on behalf of five Venezuelans who were taken into custody because of the belief that the five were not members of the gang and that they would be irreparably labeled members of the group and unlawfully deported.

On Saturday, March 15th, 2025 at 9:40 AM, Judge James Boasberg issues a temporary restraining order preventing the government from deporting the five plaintiffs represented by the ACLU and Democracy Forward. At 4 PM, President Trump issues his order to deport the immigrants under the Alien Enemies Act which contradicted Judge Boasberg’s temporary restraining order issued earlier that morning. Additionally, at a hearing at 5 PM Judge Boasberg questioned the government’s lawyer whether the Trump Administration planned to deport anyone in the next 24 to 48 hours.  At 5:26 PM and 5:45 PM two planes believed to be carrying deportees take off from Texas. Around 6:45 PM, Judge Boasberg informs the government attorneys that “any plane preparing to take off with deportees or that is already in the air needs to turn around and return to the U.S.” No plane turns around and two planes eventually arrive, one in El Salvador and one in Honduras. The deportees sent to El Salvador will be housed in that country’s prisons. Those sent to Honduras were sent there first before being sent to Venezuela as the Venezuelan government has refused to accept direct flights from the United States.

On Monday, March 17th, 2025 at 5 PM a hearing is held in Judge Boasberg’s courtroom to determine “possible defiance” of the court orders he issued over the weekend regarding the deportation flights that arrived in Honduras. However, the hearing has taken an unexpected turn as Trump Administration attorneys have now tried to have Judge Boasberg removed from the case. LEARN MORE

Policy Analysis: While the deportation of immigrants that may or may not have criminal records is a policy issue that offers competing arguments, the deportation flights to Honduras and El Salvador has gained national attention for technical reasons of a legal nature. Specifically, the incidents pose the question whether the Trump Administration and his lawyers that appeared in Judge Boasberg’s court openly defied the Judge’s orders regarding the departure of the planes.

As mentioned above in Rule 3.3 in the Model Rules of Professional Conduct lawyers cannot make a false statement to the court or offer evidence that the lawyer knows is false. Because of the timeline as compiled by the Associated Press (AP) it is not clear if the Trump Administration government lawyer has run afoul of this rule of professional conduct. But knowing that members of the Trump Administration had brought up the idea of not complying with a judge’s lawful order, discussion has centered around what recourse a judge may have to enforce their orders in the face of outright defiance by officials in this administration.

Courts and judges have a variety of options that they often use to enforce their orders when a party refuses to comply. The only problem is that many of those options become more complicated because the party that might not be complying are high – ranking officials of the Trump Administration and their attorneys which comes close to violating the separation of powers doctrine. In general, courts can use their contempt power, which is either criminal or civil in nature. A ruling holding a party in civil contempt allows a court to impose fines on a party, sometimes daily, in order to ensure ongoing compliance with a judge’s order. While this is common in ordinary civil cases, it might not mean much when a party like the Federal Government can afford to pay a daily fine and thus continue their disobediance of the court. A ruling of criminal contempt is a more punitive measure that is levied on a party. However, this option can become complicated because a ruling of criminal contempt would lead to a referral to the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney to prosecute the party for the criminal contempt order. Because the referral would go to DOJ, they likely would not prosecute an attorney representing the Trump Administration. President Trump and/or Attorney General Pam Bondi would simply direct the department to not prosecute a criminal contempt order. This would be the likely scenario if a Trump Administration attorney openly defies a court order and what Judge Boasberg is grappling with at this moment regarding how to proceed in a possible defiance of his orders in the deportation flights cases.

One modest proposal that has not been mentioned much in the media is a possible personal sanctioning of the attorneys representing the Trump Administration. A court could punish an attorney by taking the drastic step of suspending the bar license of an attorney for ignoring a judge’s lawful order. This is considered an extreme option as attorneys are given wide latitude to make sometimes outrageous arguments. But if a judge senses that attorneys are not being honest and forthright with a court in order to intentionally delay or mislead a court then this option should certainly be considered. A lawyer who has his license suspended can no longer appear in court and would certainly affect a lawyer’s opportunity to make a living and affect his or her future job opportunities. No lawyer wants to have to explain to a future employer why he or she openly defied a judge’s orders. This option would have a deterrent effect on attorneys and could cause attorneys to be more cautious in their dealings with a court and maybe even be more forceful in counseling Trump Administration officials. As an example, lawyers who brought lawsuits on behalf of Trump regarding unsupported fraudulent 2020 elections claims – Rudolph Giulani, Sidney Powell and John Eastman – have all been disciplined with Giulani eventually losing his license and Eastman’s case still pending whether he should be disbarred. These lawyers have been punished but it has also deterred other lawyers from bringing any more 2020 election fraud claims to the courts. If disbarment can deter attorneys from disobeying court orders on behalf of Mr. Trump, then courts should seriously consider this option as Trump attorneys continue to make their case in various cases in tribunals around the country. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Engagement Resources

• Brennan Center for Justice – explanation of what courts have at their disposal to enforce their orders.
• American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – background of the deportation flights lawsuit.
• This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact rodwood@email.com.