The Enforcers: Federal Courts' Can Marshal Cavalry to Bring Contemnors to Justice

US Marshals Aren't The Only Ones to Enforce Judicial Contempt Decrees

Marshaling Forces for Those in Contempt of Court…

As we have witnessed, the Trump administration has been ignoring judicial rulings that forbid what courts have repeatedly deemed illegal executive orders. But the looming question is: What can the judicial branch do when the Department of Justice (which resides under the Executive Branch) under Trump’s obvious control - doesn’t comply with judicial decrees? After all, there are three ‘co-equal’ branches of government obligated to be a check on each other…

The answer is this: Those who disobey court orders can and are often held in contempt of court. So what does this mean?

Courts have the power to hold violators in contempt. This is the power to jail those who defy court orders and legal mandates. But unlike the Executive Branch, courts are not in the business of making arrests, as they have the US Marshal Service to do just that. The caveat with this method of enforcement however, is that both the Courts and the US Attorney General have concurrent jurisdiction - meaning that if the courts order the Marshals to act on those committing contempt by ignoring a judicial ruling, it is likely Trump’s sycophant US Attorney General Pam Bondi, will revoke any contempt order the courts would issue….But, in the rare event the Marshals don’t comply with the court order - to round-up the contemnor, or are ordered by the AG to stand down - the courts’ have another enforcement avenue to pursue. As the courts’ enforcement powers clearly indicate, Judges do not need to rely solely on the US Marshals to ensure their orders are enforced - they have other methods as well…

The Saving Grace of Civil Contempt

It is not well known, but:

The Supreme Court has long held that “a pardon cannot stop” courts from punishing cases of civil contempt. And while the marshals have traditionally enforced civil contempt orders, the courts have the power to deputize others to step in if they refuse to do so.

There are specific rules that give Courts the ability to enforce orders - if the courts had no such enforcement power, they would effectively be hollow entities - a Constitutionally mandated branch of government that would be unable to stand on its own.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that guides courts and the legal process, there are two provisions of which to take note:

Rule 4.1 specifies how certain types of “process” — the legal term for orders that command someone to appear in court — are to be served on the party to which they are directed. The rule begins in section (a) by instructing that, as a general matter, process “must be served by a United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed for that purpose.”

What this provision makes clear, is US Marshal’s are not the only enforcement mechanism the courts have at their disposal. Under the rules, the courts have the ability to specifically appoint others to carry out their orders. So “who” might these “specifically appointed” others be?

The Next rule clarifies a bit further:

Rule 4.1(b), Enforcing Orders: Committing for Civil Contempt makes many things clear.

This rule sets some “geographical limits” for where “[a]n order committing a person for civil contempt of a decree or injunction” may be served based on the federal versus state nature of the underlying lawsuit.

Compare when civil forfeitures that take place around the country.

For example, the rules governing civil forfeiture provide that when the court takes control of property, “the warrant and any supplemental process” may be enforced by marshals and “someone specially appointed by the court for that purpose.”

What is the crux of all this is the courts’ power to appoint others is “inclusive and exclusive” of the Marshals to enforce a civil contempt order. Obtaining others to carry out judicial process of civil contempt has not been utilized in the past, as US Marshal’s have always carried-out judicial contempt orders - a mechanism that the courts may avail.

Who Might These “Others” Be That Courts’ Can Specifically Appoint to Roundup and Punish a Contemnor?

If the Marshals are stopped by Bondi, or fail to act, individuals that can be “deputized” to act on behalf of the court include, but not limited to: local police, sheriffs, court security officers and probation officers - all having the requisite training and experience to bring contemnors into court. And unlike the US Marshals, these law enforcers and their respective entities would be responsible only to the court - circumventing Bondi and the DOJ altogether.

So courts are not totally impotent to get their contemnor before the court, and insist on their compliance.

The Difference

Criminal contempt proceedings could be initiated, but if done so in federal court, that individual could be pardoned by the president - even if the courts could appoint a private attorney to prosecute the contempt. However, if the contempt is a matter falling under state court purview, this alone could change the paradigm completely.

What are the Common Punishments for Civil Contempt?

Punishment for civil contempt aims to compel compliance with a court order and can include fines, temporary imprisonment, or both - with the potential for indefinite imprisonment until the contemnor complies - and maybe even a record to boot.

Purpose of Civil Contempt:

• Civil contempt proceedings are used to enforce court orders in civil cases, ensuring compliance with court mandates.

See below for a more detailed explanation of commonly applied penalties for civil contempt.

• Potential Penalties: for Civil Contempt

  Fines: Courts can impose monetary penalties to punish the disobedience.

• Imprisonment: Individuals found in civil contempt can be imprisoned, but unlike criminal contempt, the incarceration in civil contempt is designed to be coercive, meaning the person can be released as soon as they comply with the court order.

• Indefinite Sanctions: In some cases, imprisonment for civil contempt can be indefinite, meaning the person remains incarcerated until they comply with the court's order.

• Common Examples of Civil Contempt:

  Failure to pay court-ordered child support or alimony.

• Disobeying a court order in a divorce case.

• Failing to comply with child visitation orders or parenting plans.

• Failure to return property ordered by the court.

• Violation of protective orders or no-contact orders.

  Key Difference Between Civil and Criminal Contempt:

  While both civil and criminal contempt involve disobedience of a court order, the purpose and nature of the penalties differ. Criminal contempt is intended to punish the contemnor and vindicate the court's authority, while civil contempt aims to compel compliance for the benefit of the other party in the civil case.

  ~~So for those disobeying judicial contempt orders & rulings - know the courts can institute consequences of disobeying court directives - all on their own!~~

  Updated 4/27/25 - Read: Held in Contempt - here.

Notes:

https://www.democracydocket.com/opinion/if-the-marshals-go-rogue-courts-have-other-ways-to-enforce-their-orders/

https://law.rutgers.edu/david-noll

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=david+noll+rutgers+university

https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Vigilante-Nation/Jon-Michaels/9781668023235

Copyright 2025, Mary Kay Elloian, MBA, JD, Esq. - The Legal EditionⓇ - Legal, Business & Policy News - TheLegalEdition.com - Al Rights Reserved.

The Information Above is for ‘General Information Only,’ and Does Not Constitute Legal Advice. Circumstances and Penalties May Differ From Case to Case. Contact Your ‘Own’ Personal Attorney Whenever You Believe Your Rights Have Been Violated!