How judges can hold Trump admin accountable for defying court orders

Legal scholars express concern over the Trump administration's perceived reluctance to comply with court orders, potentially leading to a constitutional crisis. Federal judges have cited insufficient adherence to rulings, with courts possessing the power to enforce compliance. The Supreme Court ruled the administration must facilitate the return of a deported man, but officials dispute the necessity of his return. White House claims full compliance, arguing U.S. courts cannot compel a foreign nation. Contempt proceedings, both civil and criminal, are potential consequences if the court deems the matter unresolved. Civil contempt, outside presidential pardon power, seeks compliance through fines, asset freezing, or arrest. Criminal contempt, subject to pardon, punishes disrespect of court authority. Enforcement involves the U.S. Marshals, which are under the Department of Justice and thus the president's control. If the Marshals are blocked, the court may deputize alternative law enforcement, though this is rare. A directive by Trump to not comply with the orders would be unlawful.