A July 21 report from The Washington Post states that the Trump administration has failed to comply with more than one-third of the federal court rulings it has lost in civil litigation since January 2025.
According to their review of 165 adverse rulings, the administration declined to comply in at least 57 cases. The Post claims this represents “widespread noncompliance with America’s legal system.”
The data was compiled by legal analysts and former judges, some of whom described the pattern as unprecedented. In several instances, administration officials allegedly failed to respond to subpoenas, withheld court-ordered documents, or did not carry out judicial orders related to immigration, environmental policy, and regulatory enforcement.
The U.S. Marshals Service, which enforces federal court orders and operates under the Department of Justice, did not intervene in any of the cited cases. The Marshals require authorization from the Justice Department, since they are part of the executive branch and the director is appointed by the President. Several former judges told the Post that the judiciary has limited options to compel executive compliance unless it chooses to issue contempt rulings. None have been filed in the 57 cases of alleged noncompliance.
Former U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Paul Michel told the Post that the federal judiciary appears hesitant to provoke a constitutional confrontation over enforcement authority. He noted that while noncompliance with court orders is not new, the number of incidents during the current administration is unusually high. Michel compared the situation to the standoff between the Courts and Nixon during Watergate in the summer of 1972.
Examples cited include:
- A ruling in favor of plaintiffs in a Freedom of Information Act case, where the government failed to produce records by the court-ordered deadline.
- Immigration-related cases where agencies did not reinstate benefits or halt deportations despite court rulings.
- A judge’s order for the Department of Education to restore suspended funding to a federal grant program, which was not carried out.
In some of the 57 cited cases, appeals remain ongoing. Justice Department officials reportedly argued in internal memos that enforcement of contested rulings could be delayed during the appellate process, particularly when underlying legal authority is in dispute.
Outlets repeating and amplifying the Washington Post report criticizing Trump also used the example of what the mainstream media referred to as “Maryland Man,” and whom Trump said is a violent MS-13 gang member, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, who was deported by President Trump to prison in El Salvador in March. There, a left-wing Judge openly hostile to the administration ordered his return to the United States even though his flight was already out of U.S. jurisdiction. The Post determined that this counts as a violation of a court order, even though the President’s lawyers claim it was, at worst, an ‘administrative error.’
Some left-wing outlets have erroneously reported that Trump was defying one in three judges, and not making clear that it was one in three court orders, where one judge might issue multiple orders in one case.
The Post also quoted unnamed agency officials who said there has been informal guidance to “slow-walk” adverse rulings when those rulings conflict with presidential directives or pending legal challenges.
Legal experts noted that the federal courts rely on cooperation from the executive branch to implement rulings. Federal judges do not have an independent enforcement arm, unlike some state or local jurisdictions. The usual mechanism for compelling compliance, through civil or criminal contempt, requires formal proceedings that have not been initiated in these cases.
This pattern of noncompliance has occurred primarily in policy-heavy areas, including immigration enforcement, environmental rules, diversity and inclusion mandates, and federal contracting regulations. In previous administrations, court rulings in these areas were occasionally delayed or interpreted narrowly during appeals. The current rate of noncompliance appears higher.
Left-wing outlets are also characterizing this as “intentional noncompliance” by the Trump team.
The Post article also omitted any context to past Presidents who similarly ignored the Courts or evaded the law. Notably, the Biden Administration prosecuted over 1,000 pro-Trump January 6th protesters while systemically denying the production of “Brady materials” which could lead to the exoneration of the defendants.
Turnaround times on ‘Freedom of Information Act’ or “FOIA” requests, even when ordered by the court pursuant to litigation, have also historically been slow from government agencies.
The Trump administration has been litigating to reduce the power of federal district courts from issuing ‘nationwide injunctions’ based on the facts in their one case. Left-wing groups have been accused of choosing friendly judges in friendly jurisdictions, and having a federal judge issue a court order applying to the entire nation during the often years-long litigation in their court.
In mid-2024, before Trump had been elected in November, left-wing activists like Harvard Law’s Laurence Tribe were making similar accusations and complaints, alleging that Donald Trump, as a private citizen, had ‘shredded the Constitution’ because his lawyers argued in court that he should be immune from prosecution during the several year period where left-wing prosecutors and the Biden Department of Justice tried to jail Trump and his supporters on flimsy evidence and extreme legal theories.
The post WashPost Complains Trump Admin Ignoring 1 in 3 Court Orders appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.