Recent actions by the U.S. Administration underscore a significant contradiction in judicial compliance. While the federal government frequently turns to U.S. courts to enforce policy adherence among states for instance, it has recently shown reluctance to comply with court orders when those orders conflict with its own political or diplomatic interests.

The Contradiction Explained

The Department of Justice actively pursues legal action against states to enforce compliance with federal laws, particularly on matters such as immigration, civil rights, and environmental regulations. However, the administration’s failure to enforce the Supreme Court’s order in the case of Kilmar Ábrego García—a Maryland resident wrongfully deported to El Salvador—highlights an alarming inconsistency.

Impact on Rule of Law

When the administration selectively adheres to judicial rulings, it undermines the fundamental principle of rule of law. This selective compliance damages public confidence in judicial impartiality and erodes the government’s ability to demand judicial compliance from others.

Diplomatic Complexity: A Partial Explanation?

It could be argued that diplomatic complexities may justify non-compliance in international cases. The Ábrego García case, involving El Salvador (see a recent post here), carries diplomatic sensitivities. Nevertheless, these sensitivities do not prevent the U.S. Government’s fundamental obligation to uphold judicial decisions, particularly those issued by the Supreme Court.

Restoring Credibility Through Consistency

To maintain judicial integrity and executive credibility, the U.S. Administration must demonstrate consistency by adhering to all court decisions, not just the ones it agrees with. Resolving this contradiction is essential for preserving constitutional principles of justice and governance.