this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2025

202 points (98.1% liked)

News

36142 readers

3562 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

202

If the Marshals Go Rogue, Courts Have Other Ways to Enforce their Orders (www.democracydocket.com)

submitted 11 months ago by gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

This authority is recognized in an obscure provision of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which govern proceedings in federal trial courts. 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.”

The next section, Rule 4.1(b), is entitled, “Enforcing Orders: Committing for Civil Contempt.” It 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 vs. state nature of the underlying lawsuit. But it does not say who may enforce such an order, and it never modifies the general rule that process may be served by a marshal, deputy marshal or person specially appointed for that purpose. Thus, by its plain terms, Rule 4.1 contemplates that the court may appoint individuals other than the marshals to enforce civil contempt orders.

Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20250317014025/https://www.democracydocket.com/opinion/if-the-marshals-go-rogue-courts-have-other-ways-to-enforce-their-orders/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Okay, then in that light, do you still think we need to be cautious in having the courts appoint people outside the executive branch to enforce their orders?

Like I said, I don't think you're on the wrong side, but I think this is a bad take. This is one of the last checks on Trump's power, and no telling if it's actually used... But it seems like caution is the absolute last thing we need to be advocating for right now

[–] masterofn001@lemmy.ca -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Cautious in the sense of being aware of what could happen. Not letting it. Not not preventing it. Not doing nothing.

That's what caution means. To be aware and take action needed due to impending danger.

If things are left to the system to decide, well, look where that got us.

People need to do something. Beyond signs and marches.

That's why the lady's of liberty or whatever have taken over school boards. Etc.

The left protests.

The right has done.

Protests and marches and reliance on the system will not work unless and until the people reinsert themselves and take direct action.

The checks are ignored and balances have need weighed to one side.

I didn't say don't do things. All I said was beware what the other side has done, can do, and will do.

And prepare and act accordingly.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Okay, but that's kinda my point... It's bad messaging

You provided a reason not to "do", regardless of what you meant by that.

We don't need to hesitate, it's not the time to be careful. MAGA doesn't function on the openings we create - they create their own openings, their own lies about what the left is

We can't be like the Democrats - the people don't want the adults in the room who carefully avoid breaking things. The majority hates the Democrats more than ever

The people want change. They want a movement that will make enemies. That's what most of the right wants too - they want to stop Trump and Musk, they want free healthcare, they want to afford housing, and most of all they want to hope for a better future

We need to move fast without hesitation to fight back, otherwise we'll never keep up. We don't need to worry about breaking things - things are plenty broken already.

We'll fix them and patch up the holes, but first we have to win