The U.S. Marshals Service is considered the enforcement arm of the judicial branch...
Regarding the 9-0 SCOTUS decision today...
Trump already feels like everyone thinks he blinked on the tariffs (because he did). So he's not going to want to retreat on anything else. So if he refuses, and then a Federal judge could order the US. Marshals to go and get him.
Some searching returns that the U.S. Marshals Service is responsible for carrying out extraditions to the United States from foreign countries and supporting extraditions from the U.S. to other countries. This involves coordination with the Department of Justice, the Department of State, foreign governments, and U.S. embassies.
Foreign Field Offices: The U.S. Marshals Service has a few foreign field offices in countries like the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Colombia, and Mexico to facilitate this international cooperation.
The U.S. Marshals Service are the ones primarily responsible for carrying out orders issued by federal courts, ensuring the safety and security of judicial proceedings, and protecting federal judges, jurors, and other court personnel. This has been their role since the establishment of the federal judiciary in 1789.
-
One possibility how things could play out, is the courts will issue a review of Executive Overreach.
Which is likely a very long process but would "legally" brand the Administration as Lawless.
Then, our Cold Civil War could very well warm up ?
-
Gemini AI suggests...
A direct and sustained refusal by the Executive Branch to obey a clear and unequivocal order from the Supreme Court would likely be considered a very serious challenge to the authority of the judiciary and the principle of the rule of law. Many definitions of a constitutional crisis would likely include such a scenario.
However, the Supreme Court's order in the Abrego Garcia case used the term "facilitate," and the situation is still developing. If the Executive Branch is taking steps to comply, even if slowly or reluctantly, it might not immediately be classified as a full-blown Constitutional Crisis. The level of direct defiance and the duration of the non-compliance would be critical factors.
Some definitions of a constitutional crisis specifically mention the President ignoring an unambiguous order of the U.S. Supreme Court. If the Executive Branch were to openly and definitively refuse to comply with the order to facilitate Mr. Abrego Garcia's return, it could certainly be argued that this threshold has been met.
Some historic context...
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) (The Steel Seizure Case): During the Korean War, President Truman issued an executive order directing the Secretary of Commerce to seize and operate most of the nation's steel mills to prevent a strike that he argued would jeopardize national defense. The Supreme Court ruled that the President's order was unconstitutional because neither Congress nor the Constitution granted him the authority to seize private property under these circumstances. This case clearly defined the limits of presidential power and emphasized that the President's authority must come from the Constitution or an act of Congress.
Ex parte Merryman (1861): Early in the Civil War, President Lincoln authorized his military commanders to suspend the writ of habeas corpus along key transportation routes. Chief Justice Roger Taney, sitting as a circuit judge, ruled that the power to suspend habeas corpus belonged exclusively to Congress, not the President. Although Lincoln did not comply with this ruling, it stands as a significant instance of a court challenging presidential authority during a time of national crisis.
Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan (1935): This case involved a challenge to executive orders issued by President Franklin D. Roosevelt under the National Industrial Recovery Act. The Supreme Court struck down these orders, finding that Congress had unconstitutionally delegated its legislative power to the executive branch by giving the President too much unchecked authority to regulate the transport of petroleum. This case is an example of the Court enforcing the non-delegation doctrine, which prevents Congress from giving away too much of its legislative power to the executive.
Marbury v. Madison (1803): While not directly about the Executive overreaching Congress, this foundational case established the principle of judicial review, allowing the Supreme Court to review and strike down actions of the Executive Branch (and Congress) if they are found to be unconstitutional. This power of judicial review itself serves as a critical check on potential executive overreach.
= new reply since forum marked as read
