Trump regime’s long-term abuse of executive power by ignoring the courts ‘Dollar down, Great Depression’
If the Trump regime's administrative power causes public officials to ignore the courts for a long time, American law professors have diagnosed a 'Great Depression'.
New York University law professors Trevor W. Morrison and Richard H. Fildes jointly contributed an article titled "What Happens When Trump Ignores the Courts?" and diagnosed it as a 'Great Depression'.
The public strategy of creating fear of nuclear war with the Soviet Union in the early days of the Reagan administration in 1980 was a concealed means of collapsing the Communist system by ‘breaking the backbone of the socialist economic system through the Soviet arms race’ led by the RAND Corporation, and the concealed strategy of creating fear of the dismissal of the federal government under the Trump administration in 2025 is a reenactment of Reaganomics in which a hidden strategic group monopolizes power, and the hard-line conservative system of the revival of the Nazi party in Europe, as well as the undisclosed concealed strategy of the Heritage Foundation and others, monopolizing the budget without congressional and court checks and balances, seems to be a means of executing the strategy of ‘collapse of the Chinese economic system’.
The New York Times article by two law professors diagnosed on the 16th that “an administration that openly orders more and more government officials to ignore the courts and the law is likely to pay significant costs outside the judiciary,” and “the U.S. economy has prospered due to the ‘safe harbor premium’ effect, and the collapse of the trust protection mechanism for contracts and property rights will make long-term investment in the U.S. impossible, foreign investment will leave, and the dollar will fall.”
The co-authors wrote about property rights in the United States, saying, “The long-standing stability and certainty of the independent judicial system has provided reliable protection for contracts and property rights, enabling long-term investment by the American business community and attracting massive foreign investment to the economy.” They added, “The chaos that would be unleashed by a radical destabilization of the judiciary and the rule of law could have serious economic consequences, including in the stock market, and would likely cause foreign investment to leave the United States and the dollar to fall.”
The co-authors predicted that “this (the dollar decline) would ultimately put additional pressure on the White House to follow the courts’ lead and on Congress to demand such compliance,” and that “any foolish administration that seeks to ignore the courts for short-term political gain or simply to demonstrate its ‘dominance’ over other institutions will undoubtedly soon seek refuge from the whirlwind it will unleash.” They predicted an economic collapse caused by hard-line conservatives.
The author, Trevor W. Morrison, is a legal scholar and former law school dean who teaches constitutional separation of powers, and Richard H. Pildes is a legal scholar who analyzes the intersection of politics and law and its impact on democracy. In the Trump administration, where executive power overrides court rulings, the criminal punishment and detention of “contempt of office” that judges can do are once again nullified by President Trump’s pardon power, and judges in response can attempt to “fine public officials with civil lawsuits,” and as the cost of additional rigidity and abuse of expenses gradually increase, the possibility of investment withdrawal due to a collapse of trust, a stock market decline, and a sharp drop in the dollar may lead to a situation similar to the Great Depression has been raised. The authors state that while the courts are not a standing army, there are several steps the courts can take to counter a recalcitrant executive branch: “The courts could hold the offending officer in criminal contempt and refer the case to the appropriate U.S. attorney’s office for prosecution; President Trump could direct the attorney general to prohibit federal prosecutors from prosecuting contempt; and one way to address this issue would be for the courts to hire outside private attorneys to prosecute contempt cases, a practice the Supreme Court approved in a 1987 ruling.” The authors cite scenarios of how Trump officials would respond if they ignored the courts:
A basic tenet of the rule of law is that officials must obey court orders once the legal process, including appeals and stays, has been completed. This country’s constitutional traditions are based on that understanding. President Richard Nixon’s compliance with the Supreme Court’s order to turn over secret White House tapes he had recorded shows that he followed the rule of law, even though he knew that doing so would end his presidency.
Trump administration officials, including influential Trump administration director Russell Vought and White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, have explicitly stated, or even said, that officials should refuse to comply with court orders on specific executive actions.
Traditionally, courts have moved incrementally, as a form of negotiation, rather than rushing to the most aggressive action to address executive resistance. For example, in late January, a federal court in Rhode Island issued an order directing the administration to release federal grants that it had frozen.
Last week, the court ruled that the previous order was clear and unambiguous, that there was no impediment to the government’s compliance, and that the government should immediately restore the frozen funds. However, it has not yet taken disciplinary action to ensure compliance. If the court is faced with a prolonged and overt refusal, it will likely be seen as conclusive evidence that the government is deliberately failing to comply.
A government lawyer who makes false statements to a court about government actions could face serious professional discipline, including potential disbarment. Other executive branch officials who engage in ignoring court orders as lawyers could do the same.
A court could consider holding officials in contempt of court for failing to comply. Merely threatening executive branch officials with contempt may be enough to elicit sufficient compliance to defuse the situation.
In our political climate, the prospect or reality of the threat of contempt may not bring any shame or rebuke, but some officials in the Trump administration may now view it as a badge of honor or a sign of loyalty.
If violations persist, the court could fine the agency or the specific official involved. The court could also enjoin officials from seeking redress. Of course, a fine would be meaningless to Elon Musk, but he, like the president, must enforce his policies through his subordinates, and the courts can order active action in the underlying lawsuits to punish the government.
A more significant step would be for the courts to hold the offending official in criminal contempt and refer the case to the relevant U.S. attorney’s office for prosecution, or Trump could direct the Attorney General to prohibit federal prosecutors from prosecuting contempt charges.
One way around this problem would be for the courts to appoint outside private attorneys to prosecute contempt cases, a practice the Supreme Court approved in a 1987 ruling.
There are still limits, however. The president ultimately has the power to pardon anyone found guilty of contempt, and Trump has not hesitated to use that pardon power.
Even if a criminal contempt judgment has not been reached, a federal court can enforce a civil contempt judgment by ordering the immediate detention of the offending official in order to induce compliance with the court’s order. In 2015, a federal district court detained a rural Kentucky county clerk for five days for failing to comply with a court order to issue same-sex marriage licenses. In a famous case from the Truman administration, a federal court was on the verge of ordering the Secretary of Commerce to be jailed when a negotiated settlement of a dispute was reached.
A civil contempt finding is not a criminal conviction, and judicially imposed sanctions (including fines and imprisonment) to enforce a civil contempt finding are not criminal sentences and are therefore not subject to the president’s pardon power.
In this case, a federal law enforcement agency with arresting power would have to intervene to enforce a court order to incarcerate federal officers. That would be the United States Marshals Service, which is responsible for enforcing a court order to incarcerate federal officers.
The marshals are part of the Department of Justice, the executive branch, and federal law states that “the primary function and duties of the Marshals of the United States” are “to provide security and to obey, enforce, and execute all orders of the federal courts.” Here too, the president could raise the stakes by ordering frontline U.S. marshals not to enforce the court order, or by directing federal marshals or attorneys general not to issue such orders.
But this raises an important question about the dynamic at play.
The executive’s disregard for the courts is not a simple, one-time decision.
A prudent court will give officials subject to the court order multiple opportunities to comply, and will only escalate the situation when officials make their defiance clear through their actions (or inactions).
The other side of the coin is that as the problem worsens, a presidential administration that decides to disregard a court order will have to do so repeatedly and publicly to be effective, and will increasingly need to expand the scope of federal officials who violate the law.
If the standoff continues, it will likely be appealed beyond the federal district courts, and some cases will ultimately reach the Supreme Court. For officials to continue to defy a court order and make it public, they may have to resist the entire judicial system. There is no doubt that at that point we will be in a constitutional crisis, and the courts may run out of options.
The ultimate resolution of the conflict between the factions that will dominate the news here will also depend on the reactions of various actors in the public.
An administration that openly orders more and more government officials to ignore the courts and the law will likely incur significant costs outside the judiciary.
The U.S. economy has enjoyed a “safe harbor premium,” in which the long-standing stability and certainty of an independent judicial system have provided reliable protections for contracts and property rights, enabling long-term investment by the U.S. economy and attracting massive foreign investment into the economy.
The chaos triggered by the rapid destabilization of the judiciary and the rule of law could have serious economic consequences, including in the stock market, and foreign investment is likely to leave the country.
The dollar will fall, which will put additional pressure on the White House to follow the courts’ instructions and on Congress to demand such compliance.
It will take generations for the independence of the judiciary and the stability of the rule of law to be established in a reliable and lasting manner. Any foolish administration that seeks to ignore the courts for short-term political gain or simply to demonstrate its “dominance” over other institutions will undoubtedly soon find refuge from the whirlwind it will unleash.
<Young v. United States, former relationship Vuitton et Fils, 481 U.S. 787 (1987)> The U.S. Supreme Court decision (May 26, 1987) held that <district courts have the authority to appoint private attorneys. In order to prosecute criminal contempt, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42(b) authorizes and gives reference to the appointment of private attorneys. Such appointments are a recognition of the long-established rule by the courts. They have the inherent authority to bring contempt suits against them. Disobedience to their orders, authority necessarily includes.> The court ruled that.
The Great Depression caused by the stock market crash in the late 1930s in the United States was escaped by the participation in World War II as the ‘supply expansion’ aimed at by the New Deal policy stagnated.
The ‘socialist spine-breaking’ system of the 1980s, with the supply advantage of Reaganomics and the arms buildup that did not hesitate to threaten nuclear war (the nuclear chick game), caused a financial crisis with frequent riots and rigid expansion of security, resulting in a fiscal deficit and trade deficit, and handed over power to the Democratic Party.
resident Trump sent an email dismissal notice to Judge Hampton Dellinger, who was confirmed by the Senate in 2024 and is the head of the Office of Special Counsel, on the 7th without a reason, effective immediately, while still serving five years of his term.
In a lawsuit to nullify the dismissal, Judge Dellinger received a decision from the trial court to “keep him in office for two weeks,” and on the 15th, the federal appeals court ruled to “keep him in office for two weeks,” and the Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court on the 16th for “immediate dismissal.”
Judge Dellinger leads an independent agency that protects government whistleblowers and enforces certain ethics laws, but Trump’s move to reorganize the federal government through summary action led to his “without cause” dismissal.
The president’s lawyers, who did not accept the appeals court’s “dismissal,” asked the Supreme Court justices on the 16th to allow them to fire government lawyers leading watchdog agencies.
Trump-appointed Judge Gregory Katas, who wrote the dissenting opinion in the appeals court, said in a dissenting opinion that “Judge Dellinger should be allowed to be fired,” and cited a recent Supreme Court ruling that “Congress cannot constitutionally limit the president’s authority to fire a special counsel,” explaining the basis for expanding executive power, which will be ultimately decided by the Supreme Court.
Judge Dellinger had filed a lawsuit against the administration, saying, “This court should not allow lower courts to seize executive power by telling the president how long to keep the head of an agency employed against his will.”
In the lawsuits brought to the Supreme Court due to this surprise executive order early in the Trump administration’s term, the president’s legal team asked the justices on the 16th to “allow the firing of government lawyers leading oversight agencies” in the first lawsuit. Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a “temporary restraining order” to keep Dellinger on the job for two weeks while she considers whether to issue a preliminary injunction. Temporary restraining orders are generally not appealable.
Judge Jackson’s order stated that the statute “expresses the clear intent of Congress to ensure the independence of the special counsel and to protect his work from political turmoil,” and that “the only response to this uncontroversial interpretation of the text is that the statute is unconstitutional.”
Judge Jackson, who is the “temporary relief” judge, was appointed by Democratic President Barack Obama.
On the other hand, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied the government’s “emergency motion” to stay the ruling on Judge Jackson’s earlier decision on Tuesday. Two Democratic President Biden appointees, Justices Michelle Childs and Florence Pan, dissented, saying the “majority opinion is that the government’s motion is premature.”
“The issue here is not whether the president is entitled to an expedited review of his important constitutional claims,” the dissenting judges wrote. “The issue before us is whether a simple claim of extraordinary harm would warrant immediate review by this court, which would essentially remove the legal issue from the district court’s reach before the end of the proceedings.”
The president’s lawyers, dissatisfied, asked the justices on Monday to allow them to fire the government lawyers who lead the watchdog agency.
Trump-appointed Judge Gregory Katsas, who wrote the “justice for dismissal” opinion on the appeals court, argued in a dissenting opinion that “Judge Dellinger should be allowed to be fired,” and cited a recent Supreme Court ruling that “Congress cannot constitutionally limit the president’s authority to fire a special counsel” as the basis for expanding executive power, which will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court.
Lee Jae-myung, the Democratic Party leader who is leading the stock market recovery strategy that has become the most vulnerable to sudden fluctuations under the Trump administration, said on the 17th, “If the Democratic Party takes power, the KOSPI index will hit the 3,000s without any special changes,” and “The method for hitting the KOSPI 3,000 is simple. “Because if the Democratic Party takes power, the market will be fair,” and “If the Democratic Party stabilizes the Korean Peninsula a little more through dialogue, stock prices will naturally rise,” he revealed his strategy of ‘building a pro-Trump Arms buildup system to boost stock prices.’
Representative Lee unusually appointed Kim Hyun-jong, a former head of the Trade Negotiation Headquarters and an American lawyer who was a Korean builder of the free trade agreement that the previous US Republican regime was promoting as a ‘world single market system,’ as the ‘foreign affairs and security advisor’ of the opposition party leader and dispatched him to the US to approach the Trump strategy group.